Because when you threaten users with it, most of them will comply to avoid legal actions, even if they are clearly in the right.
Then add cases where "are clearly in the right" is a lot murkier to decide, and they will comply even more. Hell, the company itself might have had their lawyers figure out the user is in the right but the cost of proving it would be so high they won't succeed.
Then add cases gravitating around massive sanctions if you're wrong, like copyright infringement.
No every day individual is risking insane sanctions if they're wrong, even if they're 99. 9% sure they're right, and the eula allows the company to manipulate them without even committing to a legal action.
> Because when you threaten users with it, most of them will comply to avoid legal actions, even if they are clearly in the right.
> Then add cases where "are clearly in the right" is a lot murkier to decide, and they will comply even more.
And this is why courts should be inherently biased against the corporation. They simply have more power than individuals and without checks and handicaps they will abuse the justice system in order to essentially bully people into compliance.
In my country, the laws and courts recognize the power differential between consumers and corporations. It's a simple concept but it essentially means corporations must prove their innocence when challenged in court. It's great, especially since everyone has access to legal counsel. Anyone who feels their rights have been violated can hold the companies accountable for it and it's up to them to produce documents and other evidence showing they followed all consumer protection laws.
What sanctions? I've never seen one even fined for pirating software or any other kind of media, let alone someone fined for decompiling or altering software in general. Is something that everyone does.
The only thing that can get you into trouble is if you that kind of things for a profit, and that is right, but if you do that for personal use or to share it on the internet without profiting for it, nobody will ever do you anything...
Does Aaron Schwartz count as a counterexample? I realize he was never formally convicted but they were in the process of throwing the book at him when he died.
One, you can have one blanket EULA for all markets, with a clause saying “except where it contradicts local law” or some such. More specifically, it’s often the case that the clause is too broad, but significant portions of it might still be applicable. In this case: you’re not allowed to decompile code as a blanket rule. The clause as a whole is still valid and applies to all other circumstances even if it can’t forbid this particular case.
Two, it might be an honest mistake (probably not the case in this particular instance, but definitely a possibility)
Three, you might cynically leave it there to discourage the behaviour. Readers might either not know the clause is unenforceable or be scared away by the possibility of costly litigation that would bankrupt them even if they’re in the right.
You can use it to issue DMCAs and as a basis for lawsuits even if you wouldn't actually win - most victims don't have the resources to exercise their rights.
Let's say you want to share your fix with people so you write a blog post with instructions. Without this ruling, you could be sued and forced to take it down.
Maybe we need to pool some money for motivating people to defy these things in court. Precedent bounties or somesuch, to motivate people to call the establishment's bluff.
