[Wolves] BBC iPlayer woes...

[Kevanf1]

On 24/01/2008, Peter Evans <zen8486 at zen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 January 2008 15:47:44 Kevanf1 wrote:
> > However, how many
> > people realistically read the EULA on a Windows product?
> I don't want to start a flame war, nor do I want to attract the ire of other
> list readers.
>
> However were I to ask you if you had read all of the terms and conditions
> attached to everything that you use, would your answer be 'yes'?
>
> Let's narrow it down and limit it to 'Have you read the terms and conditions
> associated with each piece of software on your Linux box?' would the answer
> be 'yes'?
>
> If it is then I salute you, because you've done far more than many do (guilty
> m'lord).   I will not argue that these are legalese, but then again they have
> to be to a legal standard if anyone were to be prosecuted for breaches of
> them.  We can argue that your average person that reads these cannot possibly
> hope to understand what they're signing, but there are some potential
> drawbacks if you choose to go down this route.

I can honestly say that I always skim past any EULA.  So my answer is
no.  That's why I said what I did :-)  Because I don't read them.  I
used to have to by the way as it was part of my job.  Now, and
interesting side shoot of this is that much of the MS EULA is
unenforceable in this country.  Not many people know that though...

> I suppose there's also the question as to whether these form 'fair'
> contracts - in the legal sense; this is a question that lawyers make their
> living asking and answering.

There is precedent up to a point that states that these are 'not'
meant for the average user to actually read.

> When I first read the start of the thread I was a bit puzzled, because if they
> hadn't mentioned the use of these protocols I could see some people
> (including myself) wondering whether they were in breach of the computer
> misuse act and what consequences that would bring.

I will ask the relevant questions concerning that.  After all, there
is telling people what will happen and what will be installed and then
there is hiding all of this so it is there...but not there.... if you
see what I mean?

> Not having installed it myself, would it be daft of me to assume that having
> found this out and choosing to remove it from your system that nothing
> untoward is left running without your knowledge?

Good point.  One would hope that everything was removed... however,
this is Windows stuff and anybody who has ever used MS Windows will
know that not all programs clean up after themselves properly.

> People's ire at having their systems affected is understandable, but their
> outrage at 'not being told' because they haven't read and understood what
> they are installing on their system is somewhat less so.  Particularly if it
> can be removed with no harm done.

Well, the iPlayer is aimed at the masses.  So, with that in mind I am
of the opinion that all instructions should be made very clear and in
easily understandable English (and other languages of course).  Said
instructions should NOT be overly 'wordy'.  I mean, how difficult is
it to simply say, "this software will also install a peer to peer
networking agent that will share your files with other uses who have
iPlayer. You may find you download speed is affected by this
constantly running software."

Isn't that easy?
-- 
==============================================

Kevan Farmer
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire