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] Unlike the EULAs, free software licenses do not function as contractual extensions of existing legislation. No agreement is ever reached between the parties, because a copyright license is merely a declaration of authorization for what would otherwise not be permitted by default under copyright. [2] The cost of non-compliance can be costly. Not only could you lose your license for the software, but you could also be found guilty of civil and criminal charges. The civil fine for copyright infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation, and criminal complaints could be subject to a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment of up to five years and fines that could be even more costly depending on the losses suffered by the software provider as a result of your injury. Whether Shrink-Wrap licences are legally binding differs between legal systems, although the majority of jurisdictions have these licences to be enforceable.

In particular, this is the disagreement between two U.S. courts in the Klocek/. Bridge and Brower v. Gateway. In both cases, it was a reduced licensing document provided by the online provider of a computer system. The conditions of the shrinking licence were not provided at the time of purchase, but were included in the product delivered as a printed document. The license required the customer to return the product within a limited time frame if the licence was not agreed. In Brower, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the terms of the reduced licence document were applicable because the customer`s consent is evident by not returning the goods within 30 days of the document.

The U.S. District Court of Kansas in Klocek decided that the sales contract had been entered into at the time of the transaction, and the additional delivery terms contained in a document similar to Brower`s were not a contract, since the customer never accepted them when the sale contract was entered into. Some end-user licensing agreements accompany shrunken software, which is sometimes presented to a user on paper or, in general, electronically during the installation process. The user has the choice to accept or refuse the agreement. The installation of the software depends on the user clicking a button called “accept.” See below. Again, this is a case-by-case factual analysis that requires a qualified copyright counsellor to review the AEA and the facts and determine what the legal exposure might be. We can help you if you participate in a software audit with the Enterprise Software Alliance, SIIA, Autodesk, Adobe, Siemens, Vero Software or any other software company. We offer free preliminary consultations and low flat fees for most non-judicial cases. Call us (877) 276-5084 or email the right sidebar of this page.