Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: Roland Perry <roland@linx.net>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: 03 July 2002 09:29

> The last time I looked at "shrinkwrap" licences in detail, it appeared
> that software licences were not covered by the sale of goods act, nor by
> unfair contract terms legislation, because of the specific legal nature
> nature of the thing [rights to use] being 'sold'. The best protection
> available is perhaps the ability to get your money back.
>
> As for "click here", it's probably easy to show that you *had* to click
> in order to se the product at all. Whether it matters that you've chosen
> not to read all the small print before doing so is probably back at the
> same criteria as to whether "unfairness" rules can apply.
>
> Given that very few organisations (many of which have formidable legal
> departments) force you to scroll through the whole thing, I'm inclined
> to think they have the law on their side, rather than being part of a
> global conspiracy to make the users think they have.

Sounds good to me. We 'copper bottom' by making a hard copy of the licence
agreement  integral to the documentation that comprises all our written
quotations. I would have thought this approach would adapt reasonably for
software supplied via the net.  I think there is an onus on the licensor to
state fairly the terms of the licence before a sale is contacted where it is
practical to do so. It is then unreasonable to cry 'unfair' if the licencee
does not bother to read what he is given.

OTOH for software we supply at second, third or even fourth hand through a
sales chain, then the licence is embedded, and a hard copy also included in
the package (which the user will have paid before he can read it). To be
fair, we operate a 'no questions asked' full refund policy for 30 days from
date of end user purchase.

Owen