Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

Written for USA, but it would be nice to see vendors respect these rights in
NZ, too.
http://blackbox.cs.fit.edu/blog/kane...es/000124.html
------------------------------
1. Let the custome see the contract before the sale.

2. Disclose known defects.

3. The product (or information service) must live up to the manufacturer's
and seller's claims.

4. User has right to see and approve all transfers of information from her
computer.

5. A software vendor may not block customer from accessing his own data
without court approval.

6. A software vendor may not prematurely terminate a license without court
approval.

7. Mass-market customers may criticize products, publish benchmark study
results, and make fair use of a product.

8. The user may reverse engineer the software.

9. Mass-market software should be transferrable.

10. When software is embedded in a product, the law governing the product
should govern the software.
----------------------------

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

I was interested when I say this on /. too. I remember thinking that we
already have most of these rights, at least for consumers under the Consumer
Guarantees Act, but the Fair Trading Act helps out for businesses too.



My judgment: Individuals 6.5 out of 9 - Businesses 3.5 out of 9.



Peter wrote:
> Written for USA, but it would be nice to see vendors respect these
> rights in NZ, too.
> http://blackbox.cs.fit.edu/blog/kane...es/000124.html



> 1. Let the customer see the contract before the sale.

I would suspect a clear breach of S9 of the FTA, as well as the CGA if the
contract was materially adverse from that disclosed before sale. 1/1



> 2. Disclose known defects.

I guess we don't have this explicitly, but it usually can be found out
before sale. 0.5/0.5



> 3. The product (or information service) must live up to the
> manufacturer's and seller's claims.

Yup, got this one. My guess would be that if you were dissatisfied with paid
for software because of this reason you would be entitled to a refund at
least. Might have to go to small claims to get it, but you'd get your refund
in the end. But most wouldn't think it worth the bother. 1/1


> 4. User has right to see and approve all transfers of information
> from her computer.

The Privacy Act deals with this issue for individuals, so long as the
software was purchased from a local vendor. MS went through some grief with
its Office activation and precisely what it was sending home, but the local
privacy guys couldn't pin anything down. Still, just what does MS Update
communicate back to MS. MS say one thing* but you have to trust them. 1/0


> 5. A software vendor may not block customer from accessing his own
> data without court approval.

The PA grants this for individuals. 1/0


> 6. A software vendor may not prematurely terminate a license without
> court approval.

Licenses are binding contracts which would be upheld by a court if
necessary. The fine print may give the vendor the right to cancel on
spurious grounds, but a contract is a contract. 1/1


> 7. Mass-market customers may criticize products, publish benchmark
> study results, and make fair use of a product [irrespective of any license
terms to the contrary]

I reckon this would be good to have. 0/0



> 8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
Definitely would be good to have 0/0


9. Mass-market software should be transferable.

I think this one really should be up to the contract between buyer and
seller. 0/0



> 10. When software is embedded in a product, the law governing the
> product should govern the software.
It would be interesting to see someone trying this one on. I suspect they
would not get away with it. 1/1



*Windows Update Privacy Statement (Last Updated 10/15/2002)



a.. Operating-system version number
b.. Internet Explorer version number
c.. Version numbers of other software for which Windows Update provides
updates
d.. Plug and Play ID numbers of hardware devices
e.. Region and Language setting
The configuration information collected is used only to determine the
appropriate updates and to generate aggregate statistics. Windows Update
does not collect your name, address, e-mail address, or any other form of
personally identifiable information.

Windows Update also collects the Product ID and Product Key to confirm that
you are running a validly licensed copy of Windows. A validly licensed copy
of Windows ensures that you will receive on-going updates from Windows
Update. The Product ID and Product Key are not retained beyond the end of
the Windows Update session.

To provide you with the best possible service, Windows Update also tracks
and records how many unique machines visit its site and whether the download
and installation of specific updates succeeded or failed. In order to do
this, the Windows operating system generates a Globally Unique Identifier
(GUID) that is stored on your computer to uniquely identify it. The GUID
does not contain any personally identifiable information and cannot be used
to identify you. Windows Update records the GUID of the computer that
attempted the download, the ID of the item that you attempted to download
and install, and the configuration information listed above.

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

">
> 8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
>

Not too sure I really agree with this one.

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

In article <3f559632@news.maxnet.co.nz>, nospamjynyl@yahoo.co.nz says...

> 8. The user may reverse engineer the software.

why the **** should joe blogs have the *RIGHT* to decompile my IP

if i make the decision to release my IP then that decision is Mine and
Mine alone.

--
================================================== =
Steven H

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

In article <MPG.19c167a4ff78609198972a@news.dun.ihug.co.nz> ,
smorf@REMOVEbigfoot.com says...
> why the **** should joe blogs have the *RIGHT* to decompile my IP
>
What if you've got the money, decide support is too boring and F off

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

"colinco" wrote
> > why the **** should joe blogs have the *RIGHT* to decompile my IP
> >
> What if you've got the money, decide support is too boring and F off

His software, his right.

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:22:51 +1200, Steven H <smorf@REMOVEbigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In article <3f559632@news.maxnet.co.nz>, nospamjynyl@yahoo.co.nz says...
>
>> 8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
>
>why the **** should joe blogs have the *RIGHT* to decompile my IP

Because they paid for it and now they own a copy that should be theirs
to modify as they please, so long as they don't redistribute it. Not
allowing me to modify software I've bought is like telling a book
buyer that they can't scribble notes in the margins.

>if i make the decision to release my IP then that decision is Mine and
>Mine alone.

If I make the decision to alter a product I've paid for, that decision
should be mine and mine alone.

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

In article <0u8flvoburgui1jvv98rp8rkmmhlnc1ut6@4ax.com>,
none@nospam.invalid says...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:22:51 +1200, Steven H <smorf@REMOVEbigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3f559632@news.maxnet.co.nz>, nospamjynyl@yahoo.co.nz says...
> >
> >> 8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
> >
> >why the **** should joe blogs have the *RIGHT* to decompile my IP
>
> Because they paid for it

no you blody well didnt

you pay for a LICENCE that gives you the right to USE the software in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence.

> and now they own a copy that should be theirs

they dont OWN anything, the IP that makes up the software is the SOLE
PROPERTY of the developer unless otherwise stated in the Licence.

> to modify as they please, so long as they don't redistribute it. Not
> allowing me to modify software I've bought is like telling a book
> buyer that they can't scribble notes in the margins.

your argument has no valadity - since when do you buy a licence to read
a book.

> >if i make the decision to release my IP then that decision is Mine and
> >Mine alone.
>
> If I make the decision to alter a product I've paid for, that decision
> should be mine and mine alone.

as long as it is in accordance with the Licence you agreed to when you
purchased it.

--
================================================== =
Steven H

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:32:00 +1200, Steven H <smorf@REMOVEbigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In article <0u8flvoburgui1jvv98rp8rkmmhlnc1ut6@4ax.com>,
>none@nospam.invalid says...
>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:22:51 +1200, Steven H <smorf@REMOVEbigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3f559632@news.maxnet.co.nz>, nospamjynyl@yahoo.co.nz says...
>> >
>> >> 8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
>> >
>> >why the **** should joe blogs have the *RIGHT* to decompile my IP
>>
>> Because they paid for it
>
>no you blody well didnt
>
>you pay for a LICENCE that gives you the right to USE the software in
>accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence.

Take a look at the boxes in the computer store, how many have pictures
of the software license on the front of the box? How many have no
mention at all of a license, and how many limit any mention to a tiny
blurb on one unnoticeable corner of the box?

Software vendors want to advertise a program but sell a license, and
they want to make the switch without informing consumers that what
they're getting isn't what's been advertised. There's a word for that
kind of operation.

>
>> and now they own a copy that should be theirs
>
>they dont OWN anything, the IP that makes up the software is the SOLE
>PROPERTY of the developer unless otherwise stated in the Licence.

They own the copy of IP that they purchased.

>
>> to modify as they please, so long as they don't redistribute it. Not
>> allowing me to modify software I've bought is like telling a book
>> buyer that they can't scribble notes in the margins.
>
>your argument has no valadity - since when do you buy a licence to read
>a book.

Exactly. Nor do I buy a license to use software. The license isn't
what's marketed in advertising or on the packaging.

>
>> >if i make the decision to release my IP then that decision is Mine and
>> >Mine alone.
>>
>> If I make the decision to alter a product I've paid for, that decision
>> should be mine and mine alone.
>
>as long as it is in accordance with the Licence you agreed to when you
>purchased it.

No, as long as it's in accordance with the law. And if the law says
you can advertise a television, sell me a box with a picture of a
television on the outside, and then put a legally-binding piece of
paper inside that tells me I'm only getting a license to use the
television - then the law needs to be changed (which is what this
thread is about).

Re: Software Customer Bill of Rights
 

In article <eabflvsckscf21o7n495218mipc7rgq01h@4ax.com>,
none@nospam.invalid says...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:32:00 +1200, Steven H <smorf@REMOVEbigfoot.com>
> wrote:

> > you pay for a LICENCE that gives you the right to USE the software in
> > accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence.

> Take a look at the boxes in the computer store, how many have pictures
> of the software license on the front of the box? How many have no
> mention at all of a license, and how many limit any mention to a tiny
> blurb on one unnoticeable corner of the box?

your right.

addittionally licences should be PLAIN ENGLISH

> Software vendors want to advertise a program but sell a license,

yes, a licence that gives you the righ to USE the program.

> they want to make the switch without informing consumers that what
> they're getting isn't what's been advertised. There's a word for that
> kind of operation

yes its illegeal, and if you know you CGA you wont put up with it.

when you buy a software licence, you agree to THAT licence and That
licence only - if a company makes changes to said licence they can not
be enforced on people who agreed to a Previous Licence.

> > they dont OWN anything, the IP that makes up the software is the SOLE
> > PROPERTY of the developer unless otherwise stated in the Licence.

> They own the copy of IP that they purchased.

no they Own a Licence to use the IP - any lawyer will tell you that.

> > your argument has no valadity - since when do you buy a licence to read
> > a book.

> Exactly. Nor do I buy a license to use software. The license isn't
> what's marketed in advertising or on the packaging.

what is marketed in advertising or on the packaging is the Software
Product - or IP, the Licence that you agree to before / during
installing said Software Product gives you the right to use the IP -
notwithstanding the terms outlined in the licence.

> > > If I make the decision to alter a product I've paid for, that decision
> > > should be mine and mine alone.

> > as long as it is in accordance with the Licence you agreed to when you
> > purchased it.

> No, as long as it's in accordance with the law.

agreed, no contract can let a supplier contract out of what is local
law.

> And if the law says
> you can advertise a television, sell me a box with a picture of a
> television on the outside,

we are not talking about television we are talking about abstract
concepts like Intellectual Property.

you do not "Own" Software - you own a right to use it in accordance with
the licence. the only person who "owns" software is the person or
persons who made it.

it is Their IP that went into it - what makes you think that just
because you paid for it you own it.

> and then put a legally-binding piece of
> paper inside that tells me I'm only getting a license to use the
> television - then the law needs to be changed (which is what this
> thread is about).

the law doesnt need to be changed - only in respect to common sence
contracts, format shifting and fair use.

you should find out your rights before you go on about the evils of
Proprietry IP.

you CAN resell a licence to software - no licence can contract out of
that.
you OWN a licence to said software - not the company who made it. they
only own the IP (and thus the right to sell at a price they see fit) to
the software.

You have every right there is under the sun with reguards to the CGA and
related acts - licences may *try* to make you think you dont - which in
my vho is a bad tactic.

but it is Your Responsibilaty to aquaint yourself with your rights and
enforce them.

how many times have you gone into the Wharehouse only to be stoped on
your way out by some guard asking to search through your bags - if you
had a clue you would tell them to **** off - i sure as hell do.

--
================================================== =
Steven H