Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Michael S. Lorrey writes:
> > Ah, but is it unadvertised? I'll bet there are clauses in the user agreement that
> > specifically grant RealNetworks the right to do this. If its not, I'd rather see a
> > class action than legislation. Laws should be passed only when civil litigation fails
> > to redress a wrong.
> They're thinking about including the rights to the user's firstborn in
> the fine print, in their next player version. Since the luser chose
> not to read it, it's gotta be legal, right?
Failure to read the fine print does not excuse you from the contract.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:13 MDT