there's mixed precedent for shrinkwrap agreements - but mostly they are enforced by courts
read dis for more info http://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-terms-users-guide-eulas
So I read through, and from what I have seen, most of the items that enforced seem entirely reasonable i.e. I did work, you re-sold my work without compensating me and I told you couldn't re-sell my work as well as you took my work and repackaged it as your own you lying SOB.
I don't have any problem with these terms and strongly feel they should be enforced. And yes, I have some videos I didn't purchase on my home computer. If asked to pay for or delete them, I would delete them, but if told I had to pay for them, I would. Often, there is no means for me to actually pay for them as they are not readily for sale. That is another argument...
I find many of the terms in the EULA's unenforceable because you can't actually sign away your rights by nature of a purchase. Some examples that are given on the EFF site are clauses that state you cannot compare the product or speak of the product without permission. Those are wholly unenforceable in my view, and I also don't think they have ever been challenged in a court of law.
The other humourous terms are the self-propagating EULA's like Apple's that they provide an example of. You can't legally agree to something before it has been put to you. Period. A clause like this is just there to try and scare people. Once again, it hasn't been challenged. Imagine if this was actually enforceable... you buy something for the low price of a dollar, and then without expressed consent, they change the rate to 5 million dollars... but because you agreed that you would be bound by any future price or changes. It is laughable...
The one contract example that still baffles me though it Scientology. I still can't figure out how they have gotten away with the secrecy they have.
One interesting point I take from the site, which I don't think has been explored is this:
"It's very likely that we will begin to see more and more TOS agreements that forbid consumers from using products to discuss certain socially stigmatized topics, or that assign to the vendor ownership of all consumer data stored with its service. And because many online services also install software or store data on consumers' computers, TOS agreements may claim to govern user activity on private computers, too. "
Companies really need to be careful what they wish for.
An example: The possession of certain information is illegal. Child porn, national secrets, etc. If the company owns it, they must be responsible for it. I do hope it doesn't fall through the cracks in their filters, because I would pursue the executives of the company for these offenses. They can have terms that state they are not responsible for how it got there, but you either own it all, or none of it. Make up your mind.
Many companies often forget that the law is to be used as a shield, not a sword. Play with swords long enough, and you get cut.
