• VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It actually does have legal precident. You know how you can’t read or accept the EULA for software until after you purchase it?

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They get away with stuff like that when they have sold you a “license” to their software, rather than something you gave actually purchased outright. It is argued that a license is a an agreement to access a software product, rather than ownership of it, and putting an EULA in between your license purchase or changing it later doesn’t affect your purchase because you continue to hold the license even if you choose not to agree to the terms necessary to use it. It’s a bit different for a physical item that you have actual ownership over, not a license to use it (pending agreement).

      I also find all of that to be loophole bullshit that should be fixed, but that’s a separate issue.

    • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      While true, the software put it in your face and forces you to interact with a screen that says “EULA”. I doubt using a consumable as intended will hold any jurisprudence. But then again look who we have appointing judges right now…