Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CNN Uses P2P Video & Adds Terrible EULA

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.

The Internet 254

Futurepower(R) writes "CNN's use of software called Octoshape presents an incredibly abusive EULA. If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs. Also, you lose the right to monitor your own network traffic. You can't even use information collected by your own firewall. Quoting the EULA: 'You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software. Octoshape recognizes that firewalls and anti-virus applications can collect such information, in which case you not are allowed to use or distribute such information.' "

cancel ×

254 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

good luck with that (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738059)

Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid? If asked, one could always say that they let their cat chase the mouse around until the software worked.

Re:good luck with that (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738151)

Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?

Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable? They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets? They gonna push that DRM out to my gateway to make sure I'm not capturing them there?

This is what happens when you let the lawyers draft the EULA without even consulting with the techies.....

Re:good luck with that (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738195)

You will, if you get sued over it. Obviously, the terms are ludicrous and nigh-unenforceable. This doesn't mean that they won't be enforced; just that they'll probably be enforced selectively to, say, silence critical reviews.

Re:good luck with that (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738361)

Person A accepts EULA.
Person B owns network and watches packets through router.

Person B did NOT accept the EULA and thus is not bound by it.

That's like people saying 'You can't read out signs' as a parade or protest walks by your window.

Re:good luck with that (5, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738473)

The issue is privacy. Since they are "borrowing" user's bandwidth this exposes other users potentially personally identifying information to the first user. Now you can track other user's activities (within a fairly narrow scope) by using information that can be gathered on your own computer.

I suspect they had to put this in because of this potential. Would it fly if it was clearly exposed what was happening in EU countries? I doubt it. How about if they said:

By using the CNN service you will be receiving information about other user's online activities as they will be receiving information about your activities. This is an essential part of the service that cannot be disabled. By accepting this agreement you acknowledge that no part of your activities on the CNN web site or other related services may be private, secret, anonymous or in any way protected from every other user of the CNN web site or other related services.

Would that be better?

Re:good luck with that (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739385)

The issue is privacy. Since they are "borrowing" user's bandwidth this exposes other users potentially personally identifying information to the first user.

Oh no. Is my computer broadcasting an IP address again?

Seriously, that's all the personally identifying info it should be sending out. And rather than trying to stop other people from looking at such info, they should do the EULA the opposite way. Simply inform each user that other users may be able to determine which content they are watching (which they should already be warning about anyway, even with the current restriction)

It becomes illegal to read your own firewall logs. (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739497)

I think you missed the point, Lord Kronos. The issue is not what information is there. The issue is that agreeing to the EULA means that it is illegal to read your own firewall logs. Maybe they would never prosecute, but maybe they would install software to prove you are looking at your logs. If they prosecuted, maybe you would win, after five years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The issue is that the EULA says you lose control over your network.

Not quite (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739695)

You're confusing contractual obligation with actions that are illegal. It requires a law to make something illegal, not a contract. If you breach the contract, you are not a criminal, you have merely opened yourself to whatever actions open to the other party stipulated in the contract (which is what a license agreement is).

Re:good luck with that (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739597)

Too bad we don't have methods of encryption that could work around that. It would never be perfect, but it's a lot better than a bad EULA and is already protected under the DMCA (which is retarded as well, but there you go).

Re:good luck with that (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738779)

They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets?

Given they specifically mentioned firewalls and not using/distributing the information, they should be aware that no DRM on the machine itself is going to work.

Another topic would be a network with firewall/monitoring systems run by a non-agreeing party. Let's say I'm running a coffeshop that offer free wireless. Customer A comes in with said CNN program installed. Not having agreed to the terms of the EULA, I'm free to analyze the heck out of the stream.

Or the usual fun - 'my 12 year old installed it', or 'the techs in the store did'.

Re:good luck with that (1, Informative)

j0nb0y (107699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738153)

Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid. Does anyone else matter? I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...

Re:good luck with that (1)

Crashspeeder (1468723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738245)

Contracts are legally binding but if the terms of the contract are outlandish, the contract can be deemed null and void by a court. Same thing with this, they can't expect me to not monitor my network because they said so. The key word was MY. Next thing you know their EULA will say you must run the software for a minimum of 8 hours a day.

Re:good luck with that (1)

Big Boss (7354) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738401)

Are you willing to pay a lawyer to argue that in court? That's what it will take to get rid of this sort of thing.

Re:good luck with that (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738437)

Contracts are legally binding

Only if it can be proven that both parties to the contract agreed to the contract. If you set up an agreement with a company over the phone, your recorded voice proves it's you. When you take out a loan your signature proves you agreed to it.

With a clickthrough EULA there is no proof. When I install software on someone else's machine, and I click the EULA, how can they be held to it? If the EULA is on the box, how can they prove who opened the box?

And therefore also understood it (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738575)

Most users won't even know what the EULA was talking about and so are not capable of agreeing to it; and so I doubt there is actually a contract.

Re:And therefore also understood it (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739097)

I'm fairly certain that doesn't matter... You can sign a rental contract for an apartment without having read it. You're still legally bound to it. You signed it. Ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is not an excuse for breaking a contract.

Re:And therefore also understood it (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739293)

You signed it.

I think there's a difference, here.

Re:And therefore also understood it (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739397)

Yes, firstly because the ignorance is not willful, and secondly the individual may *THINK* that they understand it, and thirdly it's not reasonable.

In many cases the individual will turn out to have been agreeing to something else, and thus there will be no contract.

Re:good luck with that (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738625)

So for free services like this, exactly what consideration am I putting up? They're giving me software/media/etc., but I'm not giving them anything. I'm pretty sure mutual consideration is one of the required elements of a contract -- am I missing something here?

Re:good luck with that (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738783)

You're giving them your bandwidth! /bonk!

Re:good luck with that (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738845)

So for free services like this, exactly what consideration am I putting up? They're giving me software/media/etc., but I'm not giving them anything. I'm pretty sure mutual consideration is one of the required elements of a contract -- am I missing something here?

CNN is putting up a website. Web sites are supposed to be accessable. What did I have to give up to read your post, to which you own copyright? To have a EULA for web content is antisocial at best.

Imagine putting a dollar bill in an envelope and writing a EULA for taking the free dollar on the envelope. Would you seriously expect that anyone would respect that EULA? Well, that's what CNN did, and the fact that they expect anyone to respect their EULA shows that they're not exactly living in reality.

Re:good luck with that (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739701)

Web sites are supposed to be accessable.

I'm sorry what? Last time I checked what the website was supposed to be was up to the owner to decide, and plenty of owners have decided that accessibility at all costs isn't what they want.

To have a EULA for web content is antisocial at best.

Practically every website with any form of registered users has a user agreement, even if it is just to cover the admin's ass with regards to young children and membership. Regardless of whether an EULA is really enforceable or not, until it's decided in court they can have various uses for the site owner.

Re:good luck with that (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740003)

Last time I checked what the website was supposed to be was up to the owner to decide

And last time I checked if you can access a site, you can access it. A site owner can no more say "you can only access this site if" any more than a book publisher can tell you you can't resell the book or rip off the cover (which publishers have tried to do).

If you don't want your work seen, don't put it on the internet. It's up to the owner to decide what to post, NOT how I may or may not access it.

Practically every website with any form of registered users has a user agreement

Half of all married people commit adultery, too. That doesn't make it right. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior no matter how many people practice it.

Re:good luck with that (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738715)

With a clickthrough EULA there is no proof. When I install software on someone else's machine, and I click the EULA, how can they be held to it? If the EULA is on the box, how can they prove who opened the box?

I think this issue recently arose with some user writing bots for an online game. The problem is, if you don't agree to the EULA, then (ostensibly) you haven't met the copyright owner's terms for using their work. And thus, using the service/software/whatever is a violation of copyright law at that point.

Re:good luck with that (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739261)

A recording of your voice maybe, but a signature really doesn't prove a thing...

Re:good luck with that (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738457)

Next thing you know their EULA will say you must run the software for a minimum of 8 hours a day.

Please don't give them any ideas. They might think this would be a good way to get more seeders.

Re:good luck with that (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738919)

Why not? The more crap goes into the EULA, the better. If they try to enforce the crap inside them, they'll manifest how low these EULAs are worth, and certainly undermine their value more and more in the eyes of everyone. And I doubt these parts are enforcable.

Re:good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738447)

Good luck my computer has an EULA that the software has to agree to when using my computer. It contains little details like agreeing that all EULA's are to be considered void.

Re:good luck with that (3, Informative)

Ark Ku Mon (1469567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738597)

Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid.

Actually the US case law is inconsistent and have only ruled on the validity specific EULAs not about them in general. There have been cases where EULAs have been ruled enforceable and valid and others to the contrary. So your statement is actually misleading.

I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...

In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a EULA disclaimer waiving all express and implied warranties, printed on the outside of the box, was not binding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology [wikipedia.org]

Also Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17)

So, there you go. And, yes, there are cases where particular EULA has been held up by a court, but contrary to your claim there has been no case law that has ever ruled on EULAs in general in such a definitive manner as you have claim.

Re:good luck with that (5, Informative)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739771)

This post is wrongly moderated. It is not informative. It is misinformative, or uninformative at best. The argument that the recognition of particular EULAs is distinct from recognition of the validity of EULAs "in general" betrays an ignorance of the judiciary and of contract law. This is simply not the way that the legal system works; courts must rule on an actual case or controversy and are not permitted to announce "general" rules of law. Furthermore, Step-Saver is anachronistic and the Third Circuit is relatively unpersuasive. In fact, there are NO major legal markets and NO major software companies within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), however, has higher persuasive authority because it is (a) newer, (b) out of a major circuit, (c) written by an enormously influential appellate judge. In addition, it is the law in the entirety of the Seventh Circuit, which includes Chicago. Others may point to Klocek v. Gateway, 104 F. Supp.3d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000), but Klocek is a district court case, and therefore has no precedential value beyond its persuasiveness, which is in turn less than that of ProCD.

Trial courts don't make law. The only U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases on point hold, unanimously, that EULAs are enforceable. The law is relatively clear here, and is unlikely to change unless and until the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court take up the issue. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

Re:good luck with that (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738851)

well... it depends. in some case some parts of EULAs have been allowed. That doesn't not mean ALL EULAs are legal or enforceable. Just like any contract.

Re:good luck with that (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739957)

So if I write a EULA that invalidates all other EULAS would that be valid?

Re:good luck with that (2, Interesting)

Budenny (888916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739095)

You need to put it much more precisely. Here is an attemnpt.

Clauses in contracts entered into by click through may be binding and enforceable. You have, by clicking through, entered into the contract. So the question is, whether there is anything special about such contracts, and also, which clauses, even if they occur in contracts validly entered into, may not be enforceable.

All click through contracts are contracts of adhesion. That is they are take it or leave it contracts. You will mostly consent to them as an essential preliminary to using something you have bought and paid for. Clauses in it may be unenforceable for a number of reasons, including that they are unconscionable. Or they may conflict with the law of the jurisdiction in which the product is sold.

To diverge for a moment, sometimes people argue that when you buy a retail copy, you are in fact not buying but licensing, in law, and they draw various conclusions from this about the enforceability of clauses such as the OSX-only-on-Macs clause. This is certainly not true, following Softman. You have bought a copy in law. Whether it is OSX, Windows, Office, makes no difference. However, that does not affect the validity of the click through contract, which is independent of the fact that you have bought your copy. You may have bought your copy, and you will have various rights which are consequent on that, including the right to resell it, but it does not follow that when you subsequently entered into a different contract by clicking through, none of the provisions in that second contract were binding. So, to take the OSX case, you did buy your copy of OSX, it was a sale not a license, but it may still be that the click through contract you later entered into to only install on Macs is binding.

So, taking up the thread of the click through contract again, any clause in such a contract meets the first of two necessary tests for unconscionability, that of being a contract of adhesion. The question of its enforceability will depend on whether it meets other conditions in respect of its substance. The starting point for this is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. Its also part of the Uniform Commercial Code. It might be that the condition meets the criterion because it is simply unreasonable. It is not realistically possible for any business now to take the risk that would be involved in not using firewalls and anti viruses, so any EULA which forbids one to do that cannot be enforceable.

The effect of this would be, if it is correct, that you would have bought the software, not licensed it. You would have validly entered into a contract, by click through. But that contract would contain one clause which was not enforceable, so if the supplier tried to sue you for breach of contract, they would fail. However, the rest of the contract would still be in force.

The situation is very similar to the OSX issue. The difference is whether the very different clause is enforceable in the OSX case. Or in the case where MS proceeds against you because, contrary to the UELA, you are running your copy of Office under Wine. Or perhaps you are supplying PCs with Office preconfigured with Office running under Wine. You'd still have entered into a contract by clicking through. The question would be whether there is some reason why this particular clause is not enforceable. As an example, in the EU, it probably would not be, but for very different reasons to do with consumer protection legislation and post sale restraints on use. As another example, in some jurisdictions the iTunes DRM, whereby tunes were locked to a particular player, was in conflict with consumer protection legislation. You can be sure that a EULA which bound you to not trying to play your iTune on a non-Apple player would not have been enforceable. Its a very different reason for unenforceability, but it illustrates the principle.

Re:good luck with that (1)

jslarve (1193417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739335)

Whether or not the license is valid, I've tried on numerous occasions with several browsers to install that Octoshape add-on. Not once was I successful. Maybe it's just me, or my antivirus, Vista, or whatever. But it's pretty bad if an experienced propellerhead like myself loses interest before installation fruition.

LOL. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739561)

Funny.

Re:good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739665)

No you'll probably find that by clicking the advanced button and actually looking at what the installer wants to do to your system that you have "over-done" it.

Hell the thing likely only works if you click next each time within a second.

Re:good luck with that (1)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739373)

They are emphatically valid in most U.S. jurisdictions.

Dear CNN, (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738065)

No.

Re:Dear CNN, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738235)

Typical behavior of the Communist News Network. You, User, are guilty of UseCrime.

Re:Dear CNN, (4, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738705)

No.

You misspelled "Fuck you."

shit, I already broke the EULA..... (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738103)

Noticed how much upload bandwidth was being used and fired up Wireshark to figure out what was going on. Hang on a sec, there's a knock at the doo$*)&!&*()@*!)(*)(NO CARRIER

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738495)

You still have dial-up? haha :)

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738861)

and his hangup was able to type in a catchpa AND hit submit...

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (3, Funny)

aquarajustin (1070708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739325)

Christ, how could you have possibly moved the 'p' over that far? It's "captcha." Also, if you didn't always post AC, you'd know that there's no captcha for regular users.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (1)

overlordofmu (1422163) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738795)

The Nintento Wii and SCEA Playstation 3 both have very similar "you can no longer monitor you own network" provision in their online EULAs. How is CNN doing it new or important? This is a long time problem and nothing new. These sections, however, are non-enforceable because they are not legal. If the EULA said you must close your eyes and were not allowed to open them it would also be non-enforceable and not legal.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (5, Funny)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738979)

Who the hell knocks on your door, pushes you out of the way, pounds on they keyboard, types "NO CARRIER", and hits Submit?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739029)

Who the hell knocks on your door, pushes you out of the way, pounds on they keyboard, types "NO CARRIER", and hits Submit?

Who the hell has a UID in the 100,000s and doesn't know the NO CARRIER joke?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (5, Funny)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739353)

What's a "NO CARRIER" joke?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739583)

Long story short, back in the day, your computer would print "NO CARRIER" when you lost your network connection.

The joke is that the above poster implies his connection was suddenly terminated.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739779)

Actually, I did get the joke. My joke was the UID in the 10,000s not getting it.

I fail at humor :(

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739505)

Just because it is commonplace doesn't mean it isn't stupid. The entire joke is doing it wrong, and anyone who doesn't immediately recognize it shouldn't be making jokes like that.

It is like inb4. Most everyone doing inb4 does it wrong. It is like typing ... or candleja when doing the candlejack joke, everyo

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... (1)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739615)

See, there are two guys, with two different jobs.

One guy carries the victim out of the building to meet his fate.

The second guy wipes the computer (No carrying). As a warning to others, he always writes his name in ominous all-caps -- NO CARRIER.

---

Ba-dum-dum. How bad was that? To subtle? Contrived?

They don't even offer me the EULA! (2, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738985)

I'm on Linux, and as a test, I just watched some [boring] live video on CNN:
1. CNN did not try to install a P2P application on my PC
2. I was not offered any EULA
3. My upstream data traffic did not change
Obviously, CNN hates Linux. Good news!

The EULA applies only to live video. Later...? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739653)

The article says that CNN offers other ways to watch the video, but that is not always obvious.

Re:They don't even offer me the EULA! (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739753)

Ha, I was just going to ask:
Yes, but does it run on Linux?

OK, then... (5, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738169)

OK, then. Install it on your machine (and agree to the EULA, if you wish), and then plug your machine in to my network. I certainly didn't agree to the EULA, so I can and will make use of that information.

Re:OK, then... (2, Funny)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738269)

But, but,... the license is viral. You are a slave of your users and especially big media.

Re:OK, then... (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738511)

Sweet! I won't be watching CNN video, but I bet the things I am downloading would go a lot faster than on my 1mb connection.

Re:OK, then... (3, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739999)

I always wondered about stuff like that with EULAs in general.

What happens if you replace the EULA with your own terms before installing, and therefore never agree to anything they said at all? It occurs to me that the agreement not to modify the software is actually in the EULA, so what are they going to do about it?

Well it'll work great then. (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738233)

The majority of CNN's demographic doesn't even know what a EULA is anyway. You could say the same thing if you replace CNN with Microsoft too.

Get out of EULA free card (2, Funny)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738265)

I did click Accept, but i did not inhale!

Really? (2, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738285)

Does it really say "you not are allowed"?

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738741)

It sure does.

here is the official EULA [octoshape.com]

Half way down in section three. What is it about EULAs that, despite being universally hated and legally toothless, inspires companies to make fucking assholes of themselves when writing them?

Here's how it happened: (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739745)

CNN and Adobe executives put a lot of thought into that software. They sat around at a 3-hour lunch drinking, talking about their million-dollar salaries not being enough, making rude remarks to the waitress, and wondering "How can we sink our companies, fast?"

From the article: (3, Funny)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738313)

At first glance, Ferrell adds, the multiple connections to his PC looked on his security alert system like some kind of SQL attack.

Oh really.

News at 11! (0, Flamebait)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738411)

Company creates abusive and unenforceable EULA, News at 11!

Tin foil hat (5, Funny)

sstpm (1463079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738423)

CNN is providing us a service, making sure that Big Brother can't monitor what news stories we are watching. The EULA is there for our protection. Thank you, CNN!

Re:Tin foil hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738721)

Pull it on tighter. I don't think its on tight enough for you.

Re:Tin foil hat (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739357)

Pull it on tighter. I don't think its on tight enough for you.

Oh, you meant the tin foil hat. I thought you meant... never mind.

Re:Tin foil hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739195)

I don't know why this is modded funny. This is actually helpful against the RIAA.

Well, they should have read my Eula (5, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738443)

I send an extra header in my http streams that contains a Eula stating that by responding to the request, they acknowledge that any Eula they present to me is null and void.

mod d%oFwn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738467)

one or the other Was what got me people playing can rlapid, design aaproach. As

CNN sucks anyway (1, Troll)

RoCKeTKaT (1456287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738519)

Who watches CNN. It's by far the most biased, full of propaganda news channel in existence. Why bother with them or their software.

Safeguard?? (2, Interesting)

pixie.pt (963700) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738529)

I usually pay for the bandwith I use on torrent both download and upload, if I don't want to use it I'll shut it down, it's that strange that cnn wants to play on the safe side so that no wacko try to bill them for the upload they make? As for the rest I see it as 'you cannot use any of this information for selling or using against us'...

Uhm, this is legal content, so.... (1)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738539)

I could see the consumer protection factor involved (i.e. preventing some MPAA official from spying in) were the content illegal. But seriously, wtf?

I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama (5, Interesting)

DrewBeavis (686624) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738577)

I have Little Snitch on my mac and noticed all the OUTGOING bandwidth being used while watching their video stream. After I figured out what was going on, I went to MSNBC instead. The quality is great at CNN and the idea is decent, but unless I read the EULA (which I didn't beforehand), I wouldn't know my contribution to the cloud. My employer monitors outgoing bandwidth usage and I could have been in trouble for high flows if I would have watched the whole thing. Being at a university, we have a large pipe, but I think I needed to be asked first a little more explicitly if they could use it.

Re:I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738785)

Please contact CNN and let them know you aren't going to use this.

Enough people contact them, they will change the EULA. Not that I think they could enforce the parts about what yu can do on your machine.

EU monitoring requirements (1)

tonyreadsnews (1134939) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738633)

Wouldn't something like this be required because the EU has laws against tracking IP and content. Also, you wouldn't want someone to try and inject alternative data in the shared file. If you install a P2P program of course you have to let them use your bandwidth, and according to the article, it stops sharing shortly after you stop watching. I'm all for making sure companies aren't taking advantage of people, but isn't P2P for video a good thing?

This language sounds good to me. (2, Interesting)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739455)

1. P2P Video is the best way to scale video feeds to tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers.
2. Because of how P2P works, it is unavoidable that you get direct IP addresses of other video watchers.
3. Legal language is necessary just to prevent (or make less inviting) outside agencies or users from spying, collecting IP addresses, and otherwise abusing all the other users of their P2P network. Isn't this a good thing for privacy? Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?

Really, not every bit of legalese is a big attack on the average user.

Simple solution (1)

suraj.sun (1348507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738687)

here's a simple solution : Dump CNN.

Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape? (4, Funny)

chaosdivine69 (1456649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738749)

Sorry for a newbie like question but anyone know how to uninstall this Octoshape plugin? I mindlessly clicked "agree" in a fleeting effort to watch live video on that plane that crashed into the Hudson river on one of my machines. For all I know I just signed away rights to my kidney and left "testie" too. Any info. would be appreciated... Cheers.

Simple solution... (2, Informative)

Krojack (575051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738769)

Don't let CNN or any of its software into your computer/network. This just adds to the list of reasons why I deleted the channel from my TV listings.

Covering their backsides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738789)

CNN probably realizes the bandwidth doesn't belong to the end user, but to the ISP. When Net Neutrality becomes a reality, ISP's will be forced to abandon the flat-rate service model and charge by usage. CNN is just trying to make sure that when the end user receives that four figure Internet bill, the end user can't sue them for theft of service or some such.

Most large ISP's already have usage based billing trials going on in various cities around the US, so it is coming.

I think people forget that in the early days, the Telcos wanted to charge ISP's by the minute for their dialup lines. That is the model the Telcos understand and like. The cable companies are coming around to that point of view as many have their own usage based trials. It will simply take an event that allows them all to change at once. I'm betting on the passage of a Net Neutrality bill to be that event. Independent ISP's are all but non-existant anymore, so who will oppose them?

No Eula on Linux (3, Interesting)

GRW (63655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738809)

I went to CNN and ran a live video and didn't get the EULA pop up. Just another reason to abandon Windows for Linux.

Explains why my work banned it. (4, Informative)

insomniac8400 (590226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738913)

On inauguration day cnn.com live video was banned for using too much bandwidth. Now I know why. It was probably flooding the upload pipe.

P2P is a good idea for video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738925)

Even if the EULA is bad.
Where's the open source P2P video streamer?

They need these permissions (3, Informative)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739025)

Imagine you didn't agree to these conditions. How do you expect CNN to deliver the service?

If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs.

Its a P2P service - so if you use it, you are sharing your bandwidth with other users. Or, top put it another way, CNN are using your bandwidth to deliver their material to their customers.

So if some joker leaves it running in his hotel room and gets charged $1 per megabyte, he shouldn't sue CNN. Sounds fair.

You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software.

So if I collected data about the other CNN customers who are sharing my bandwidth via the P2P service, their IP addresses, what they were watching, and when and published it, that would be OK, would it?

We take these things as read when we use P2P, but obviously some lawyer at CNN has done a bit of due dilligence and covered his arse in case some troll comes along and sues them.

The fuss about this is a bit like the scare stories photo-sharing sites requiring permission to reproduce/modify/sub license your photos: they need these permissions to run their service.

Re:They need these permissions (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739477)

So if I collected data about the other CNN customers who are sharing my bandwidth via the P2P service, their IP addresses, what they were watching, and when and published it, that would be OK, would it?

Why would it not be OK? Perhaps not morally justifiable, but it's no different from publishing web-server logs or putting a live webcam of your house on the internet. It's a legal way around something that's technically impossible to stop, and something which just happens to be an accepted part of every day life in the real-world.

The consent is implied when the other person accesses your computer, knowingly or unknowingly, that it may be logged and may well pop up somewhere in future, so why should this program do something completely differently from the rest of the internet?

Re:They need these permissions (2, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739887)

The consent is implied when the other person accesses your computer

Yes, but they didn't know they were accessing your computer. They thought they were accessing CNN. If they complain, they're going to complain to CNN, not you. The program they ran was branded "CNN" not "John Doe's PC".

This is defensive ass-covering from a big, deep-pocketed company which would be an attractive target for legal trolls. Nobody is going to be bothered to start a $20-million class action suit against your webcam.

Don't use it? (-1, Flamebait)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739071)

If you don't like it, don't use it? Bitching and moaning about it on this site isn't going to change anything, unless somebody can link me to a story where slashdot contributions actually made a difference?

So then CNN is taking responsibility for my system (5, Insightful)

rindeee (530084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739187)

Since the EULA requires me to be hands-off, is CNN then going to assume legal responsibility for my system. In the event that a vulnerability is exposed in their P2P software, are they responsible for patch management and compliancy assurance? Should my system become compromised and, say, used as a distribution point for kiddie porn because of their EULA requirements, can I assume their legal council will represent me? How about we turn this around on them. They've removed all responsibility for security from the user, so demand it from them.

What If the router is mine? (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739243)

And someone is running that software? I didn't agree to any EULA. I am not using the software. Those data packets are mine! I can monitor them all I want.

Is this correct?

Errrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739319)

"can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs."

so, how is this different from skype, zattoo, skynet or any p2p stuff...?

CNN is Fox Lite (1)

Murpster (1274988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739383)

This is atrocious, but I don't really care. CNN has long ago stopped being a worthwhile news outlet when they adopted Fox News style sensationalistic pseudojournalism. CNN TV is now full of garbage like Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, and very light on actual news updates. Their website likewise has become less like a news site than like National Enquirer Online (don't forget you can buy this headline on a tshirt!) and there are hundreds of better internet and TV news sources. Add this stupid license and bandwidth theft to all that, and I have to wonder why any of you would consider cnn.com a web site to visit.

Basically just a no-reverse-engineering clause? (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739473)

All it says is, while you may see exactly what's going on through means available to you like firewalls and antivirus programs, you are not allowed to look too hard through it because that's tantamount to working out how our P2P protocol works.

I guess, you're not going to see a WireShark module for Octoshape protocol any time soon. Or maybe you will..

Great EULA (1, Troll)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739639)

Really, i dont understand most of the retards here. Kneejerk anybody?

The EULA ensues
a) that its a P2P service (you know, YOUR upload)
and
b) that you still have privacy when using it.

Both are required AND desireable.
True, you cannot really enforce it. But at least they did try to do the best for their customers.

Overrated CYA (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739897)

That's quite a lot of fearmongering in this article.

If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs.

CNN is afraid of being sued by someone if that person's ISP makes them pay an overage fee.

Also, you lose the right to monitor your own network traffic. You can't even use information collected by your own firewall. Quoting the EULA: 'You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software. Octoshape recognizes that firewalls and anti-virus applications can collect such information, in which case you not are allowed to use or distribute such information.'

Well, you quoted the relevant bit. They're basically saying you cannot spy on other users of the network (standard EULA rule), and since this is P2P, other users data will go through your network so please don't snoop on other users.

Is this news?

Is an EULA an eulogy? (0, Offtopic)

LordWoody (187919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739911)

Has anyone else notice the coincidental (?!) connection in sound and appearance of "EULA" and "eulogy"?

From Wikipedia: A eulogy is a speech or writing in praise of a person or thing, especially one recently deceased or retired.

So a EULA would then be a death speech for the software or device for which it is written. ...We think this is great software, but now due to this EULA, it's dead (or at least we are going to make it that way)...

Not a bad idea..too bad the EULA sucks (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739997)

They have the right idea I suppose.
Why not use P2P if you can get the video faster?
I guess they want to protect themselves from privacy issues.
People that don't care about what's in the EULA probably don't want to know anything about IP traffic - they are the majority.
The people who do know about IP traffic and do care about the EULA (./ers) are the minority, and CNN can probably give a shit what we think of the EULA
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>