While looking through some of my 1920s books for hardware details, I came upon this statement in a Sears builder's supply catalog: "We bind ourselves to protect every customer in every way as to any claimed infringement of trade marks, patents or copyrights on any goods bought from us in the past or that may be bought from us in the future." Just slightly different from the modern relationship between company and customer, wherein a company promises to protect -itself- from any customer who dares to commit any dastardly deeds such as using the product.

Too true!!

Every year there is more evolution and convolution added to the EULAs to the point that consumers are signing all of their rights away to use Product X; be that whatever product(s) they buy. What is needed is a "Consumer's Revoltion" in which the paying public refuses to sponsor any company that attempts to supercede the laws available to protect both the creator and the consumer. However, every generation of new users comes in at a time when some of those rights have already been eroded away, and they barely notice the difference. Many people leave that up to law makers, etc, to decide; yet many people do not fully understand their rights and presume that companies have researched them and EULAs protect both interests. I sincerely hope that we can get back to a time when customers come first; for without customers, no matter how good a product/service may be, there is no way a company could survive.

Revolution*

I don't agree that any of our rights have been "eroded away". Just because a company puts a EULA on their product doen't make it binding in the least. In fact, legal precedent has already shown that courts side with the consumer in these matters. Therefore I don't worry in the least about EULAs, because they are about as binding as toilet paper.

"Therefore I don't worry in the least about EULAs, because they are about as binding as toilet paper." Yep, that's the real long-range problem with the present state of copyright law. The theory has moved so far toward the end of the spectrum called "moral rights" -- the idea that the artist owns every conceivable aspect of his original idea forever -- that it has become largely unenforceable. The real point of having copyrights and patents, as described in the US Constitution, was not to insure 100% eternal ownership of ideas, but to motivate as much innovation as possible. That goal is best reached by a more finite and balanced approach, which gives the creator a fairly short and limited monopoly, so as to make some money while the idea is fresh, but leaving room for others to take the idea and create variations. In the end, everybody gains more by cross-pollination than by hoarding.

Oh, Ockham, you have no idea what a button you've pushed with me. Copyright has gotten SO out of control (thanks, Disney, you bastards). It is absolutely ludicrous that a patent lasts 14 years with renewal, and a copyright lasts life+90, when they serve essentially the same purpose! 90 years! The point of copyright was for the artist to be able to make money off their idea, not for their great-great grandchildren to. We need TOTAL reform, or at least tell Disney to get bent and accept that Mickey Mouse is just going to have to be on his own and go back to the laws in place before the first time the damn rodent's copyright was about to expire. :P Whew. Sorry 'bout that. Like I said, it's a hot spot.