Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Peter Fairbrother]

> Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <15650.63119.913633.666706@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian
> Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>> Users who are convinced that they don't have rights won't try to
>> enforce them even if they do exist.
> 
> So you really think that in 15 years and a billion PCs sold there's not
> been one user stroppy enough to take this to a test case and win? I've
> not even heard of a test case that was lost.

Hmm, that last sentence kinda invalidates your own point, or makes it if it
wasn't meant ironically.

Wasn't there a case or two about "shrinkwrapped" licences? Not quite the
same thing, I suppose, but a general perception is that both have no legal
force.



Isn't media player free? The Mac version is, as is the security upgrade for
the Windows version. Where's the consideration? No consideration = no
contract, neh?

Such "click-to-agree agreements" _are_ widely regarded as having no legal
effect in the UK. Wouldn't that reasonable and widespread expectation alone
negate intent? No intent = no contract, neh?

If the end-user agreement is an "agreement" rather than a contract, whatever
that might mean if one party doesn't knowingly agree, does it have any legal
force?

If I put in a click-through clause that said if you used my software I could
from then on stay in your house, eat your food, drive your car and make love
to your wife, would that have any legal effect?

Nobody reads click-through "agreements".


-- Peter Fairbrother