How else would you have them do it?

The answer is, it’s not there for the customers, it’s for the content creators. They want assurance that if an end-user copies their material, MS won’t have pretended that htey were allowed to do so. It’s the story of the crippling of Vista, through and through.

However, without knowing – and understanding – every part of the EULA should there be an infraction of it legally you’d be stuffed.

In the same vein that not reading a mortgage agreement – several hundred pages in some cases – when the bank adds a zero to your payment you’re equally scuppered.

my concern is that these contracts are very demeaning to the user. And disabling too, in a “you wont understand this, you’re too stupid, but we will still sue you if you step outside the rules” way which, in a 69 page scroll, is now reduced to a “we cant even be bothered to present this in a helpful fashion — just press the button, and hope we dont get pissed off with you” which is incredibly disempowering and disrespectful of the customer.

Clicking through 69 pages is totally insane, and not a suitable way on ensuring that the reader agrees to it. Also, on the screenshot, what am I agreeing to? That these are the terms of service? This is stupid, lazy, arrogant, inconsiderate design at its very worst.

How is this ANY differnt from the million other EULA’s out there for every game, program, website I visit? Some have taken MS bashing to new levels

Sorry, I dont buy the “its designed for TV” argument. A great deal of Windows Media stuff is done on screen of the PC itself, specially this style of touch-screen home media device, and where there is no sign of a conventional 40″ TV. And it wouldnt be hard for the software to sense which screen it was on, either, and to adjust accordingly if necessary.

The problem here is the interface that they present the EULA in. Placing 64 pages of text in a small window on the screen is INTENTIONALLY making it hard to read.
Would you read web pages only using 1/4 of your screen? Of course not, but that is all they give you to read the EULA in.

I would read it just because you said I wouldn’t.

It must not be too shameful for you to make a buck off it. You got multiple ads for bing on your page which is owned by Microsoft.

MS are no different to other large corps. They do it because they can, their attatude is Agree or use someone elses software. I cannot see that this can be described as an agreement. Surely its better described as terms of use.

What we need is a body that represents the consumer that can negoiate on behalf of all users to ensure that EULA’s are real agreements and that they are fair to both sides.

Any company getting this organisations approval can display a sign to provide confidence to users.

This would not be fool proof, of course monopoly’s still have the upper hand to some extent but it would be a way of introducing competitive advantage to those companies that have had EULA’s approved.

And Mr Seriously: yours is a common delusion, so it should be corrected. The reason we “make a buck” from those adverts is because MS and the other advertisers value our independence, not because they value our submission. One of these days I am going to film Jon when he gets in range of Microsoft people (these days, any of them!), and you can decide who looks like they own who. They have got on planes, suddenly, to escape a Honeyballing…

@ Jon and Steve.

Your columns are the first ones I read in the mag, but this post is nothing more than a rant.

Why don’t you both do what has been suggested and read the EULAs and tell us all what they say… I can’t be bothered

As said before, this is no different to any other EULA. Instead of making one solid block of text as most are they have split it into 69 pages of larger text that you can read should you choose to.

In fact, I would ask if you even read a standard EULA. Very few people will read every one put in front of them, and barely a handful more have ever read one in full ever!

Frankly I do not see the problem with MS (or others) taking an “accept or use someone else” approach. Surely you bought the product knowing that you will have to accept any and all terms by the maker of the product.

To be honest I do not see the point in this actually misleading and accusatory article. As others have said this takes MS bashing to a new level, one I would contend even PlayStation fanboys would consider too far!

Umm of course its a rant piece. “Posted in: Rant” is a clue!

As for MS bashing — its an MS EULA, hence MS are the target.

If Joe’s Software Farm had done it, it would have received exactly the same treatment.

And not, its not up to me to come up with a better solution. Thats up to Microsoft. Cos its their EULA (see a pattern emerging here?)

I think the word entrapment may be over egging it, if only because there’s no such concept in English law. As Steve Cassidy has pointed out, it’s more likely to be detrimental to Microsoft. If a court were to decide the Terms of Service were unreasonably difficult to read because of layout, Microsoft wouldn’t be able to rely on them. Of course, that wouldn’t stop a consumer using any part against Microsoft.
 
All I can now think of is the Monty Python ‘String’ sketch. Due to bad planning, the 1311-word Terms of Service is in 19-word lengths.

I usually don’t post on Blogs but ya forced me to, great info.. excellent! … I will add and bookmark your site.

And no, its not entrapment because you CHOOSE NOT to read it. Sure, that’s not fair, but life isn’t fair. You should have learned this when you were in school. Moving on….

Should have read as EULAlyzer (I left out the “y”).
It has helped me examine long and complex EULA’s.