Adobe EULA Demands 7000 Years a Day From Humankind 224
oyenamit writes "When was the last time you actually read and understood the EULA before installing a software? Never? You are not in a club of one. Unless you are a legal eagle, it would be almost impossible to fully understand what you are agreeing to.
Consider this: The Adobe Flash installer has a EULA that is 3500 words long. Adobe claims that the software is downloaded eight million times a day. If each person takes 10 minutes to read (and understand!) the entire text, they would consume over 1,522 years in just one day. If we put that into man-hours: an 8hr day, 240 working days in a year, that becomes 6944 years in a day. Turn that into a 50-year working life and that's 138 lifetimes a day! The Register deconstructs the text that we all blindly agree to by clicking the 'I have read and understood the...' checkbox." Also, never operate a GPS device in a moving vehicle.
Half the length of a novelette (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_count#In_fiction [wikipedia.org]
OK, so about ten years ago before my kids were old enough to enter into contracts, I simply had them install my software for me, meaning that no one read and understood the EULA. How are these abominations in any way enforceable??
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see that they could be. There's no way (AFAIK) for a company to prove who clicked the "OK" button. Certainly there are arguments that could be made about the likelihood that a certain individual did so within a given scenario (for example, Jane buys a new computer and is the only person with access to said computer; the likelihood is that Jane is the one that installed additional software on it and agreed to the EULA). That said, I don't see how they are realistically enforceable in many (most?) cir
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a joke assertion that the average person should be able to read and understand 3500 words of dense legalese in 10 minutes too - infact I claim that *nobody* can do that, not even a crack lawyer with eulas as a speciality.
A qualified person might, in an hour or so, feel *reasonably* sure what the EULA says. An average person could likely spend a day analysing the text, and stil miss substantial points.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate EULAs and think they shouldn't exist, your reasoning is specious. Lets assume for a minute that a EULA is a valid contract. If so, they're offering you the software in exchange for agreeing to the contract. They have no legal obligation to allow you to negotiate on the contract. So you don't get to red line the contract and still use the software without their approval.
But if you do red line the contract and then click "ok" and subsequently the software operates, the vendor has agreed to your changes. The vendor is using the licensing screen as a legal proxy - they delegate authority to the software to sign and validate the contract. If you sign (click ok) the software works, if you don't sign the software doesn't. If the delegated legal proxy doesn't take into account that you red lined the contract it isn't a very good proxy, but it why would it make it any less legal?
Re: (Score:3)
I may just try that, for entertainment value alone when they get the email.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.
Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).
Re: (Score:3)
Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).
This is all true. However, the catch is in the "legally obtained copy" part.
Without agreeing to the license, you haven't legally obtained ownership of a copy.
if the copy was made by someone authorized to make the copy (for instance the copyright holder), and someone authorized by to sell the copy sold you the copy (for instance an authorized distributor) then the copy is an authorized copy - i.e. "legally obtained copy" to re-use the phrase we both agree on. There is no additional requirement in copyright law beyond possession of the authorized copy to execute software on the computer even though the computer makes its own internal copies as a result of execut
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's like I walk into your store, pick up a box that says "Blue shirt" on it, pay you $50, walk out the door, open the box and find that the shirt that is locked inside a second box with a lock on it. That lock has a note that says "By opening this shirt you agree to allow our store to track your movements via GPS, take video with hidden cameras installed in this shirt and sell those videos to the Tosh.0 show if any of them are deemed funny"
If I don't agree, I don't get the shirt I just paid for... I take it back to you and you tell me "All sales are final!" So what the hell is the customer supposed to do? It'd be one thing if you had to agree to the EULA before you paid... but after the fact?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they've since fixed that with an "e-mail this to me" option, and I could have just not bought that Taylor Swift song right then and there (don't judge me.) Still, 64 pages? In a sane world (which the legal system is not), that massive shit of dense legalese would be clear proof that the EULA was never meant to be read or understood by the user. Just have me press a button agreeing to not sue Apple for anything. It's just as fair and makes just as much sense.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sane world (which the legal system is not), that massive shit of dense legalese would be clear proof that the EULA was never meant to be read or understood by the user.
Hmm, how about a legal principle that correlates the value of an object with the size of the EULA. Companies would get 256 bytes to start with, then 1 byte per $10. Any part of the contract after the limit would be null and void.
Standard things like songs, cars, and houses could just provide a link to the relevant law and leave it at that.
I've also thought that a law that discourages companies from claiming rights they don't have would be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also thought that a law that discourages companies from claiming rights they don't have would be a good idea.
the first line in the next EULA would be exchanging the rights for the company to be able to circumvent this law in order to use the product.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with a "reasonable" EULA is people keep coming up with new and interesting ways to cheat. A EULA that ignores known ways to cheat is then a haphazard document that courts will not look upon well. This then impacts exercising other rights that may be important.
It is like the class action lawsuit verbage that is being used today. If in a year or so your EULA does not include that then it will be viewed as an invitation to file class-action lawsuits against the company. And a court will clearly
it times out before you finish reading it (Score:3)
I read through the iTunes EULA and gave it a good think. Then when I returned to my computer to press "I agree" it told me my session timed out.
I could start again, but how can I be sure that the EULA didn't change?
I wrote Steve Jobs (when he was alive), asking how it could be legally binding if it was impossible to read and click on?
No response.
Re: (Score:3)
There is only one solution to this. We need standard Terms of Service and license agreements. Defined in law, with a core agreement and maybe a couple of optional clauses when required. Companies must use those agreements, making it very easy for the consumer to know what they are signing up for and what their rights are.
I think you are onto something here. (Score:5, Funny)
"Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user," Samantha said, stripping off her blouse. A voice echoed back to her through the open window on the street below, "UNLESS YOU HAVE ANOTHER AGREEMENT DIRECTLY WITH ADOBE THAT CONTROLS AND ALTERS YOUR USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE ADOBE PRODUCTS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BELOW APPLY TO YOU." She gasped and lunged for the pistol.
___
Re: (Score:2)
Better in video format.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with making video format EULAs is they would probably resemble 2G1C or goatse more so than any other video.
Re:I think you are onto something here. (Score:4, Informative)
That's not a pistol!
Re: (Score:2)
Videodrome [wikipedia.org] for the Internet generation?
Re: (Score:2)
That already is the position people end up in after making a visit to the office of Adobe's head lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:5, Funny)
Here's how that works. (Score:2)
Well, I've been around the block a few times in the US legal system. Here's the heuristic:
1) Guilt, innocence, and laws don't really matter, because their interpretation is negotiable inside a courtroom
2) Whoever has the better legal team wins
3) In nearly all cases, the better leg
Re: (Score:3)
OK, so about ten years ago before my kids were old enough to enter into contracts, I simply had them install my software for me, meaning that no one read and understood the EULA. How are these abominations in any way enforceable??
Bullshit, You never did this.
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, often they are. It's more a matter of "technically, the law can consider them a binding contract", and it often comes down to a judge to decide whether or not it's truly binding.
We've seen several cases here recently where a user clicked through a TOS and clicked "agree" which caused them to waive some rights, which ended up being relevant in court later.
So in cases like these where there's an obvious "bad law" (or precedence) on the books, it usually comes down to who can afford more justice (hire more lawyers) to get the legalities "interpreted" their way determine who wins.
It's a basic problem without a clear-cut solution. Companies need to be able to protect themselves from random people that will abuse the legal system. That's why boxes of q-tips have to say "don't put in your ear". But people need that same protection from companies that also abuse it with thinks like "agree to no class action lawsuit". TOS are double-edged swords, the problem is there's no balance. It's hard to codify "common sense", there's no easy way to draw a good line. It's both a way for people to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, AND a tool to use to take advantage of others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also if you can demonstrate you didn't understand the terms of a contract it also gets voided. That shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.
Nobody see
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:4, Informative)
There is one important variation you need to consider. Software EULA for physical purchases does indeed usually have the EULA in the box, out of sight, without anything on the outside saying "visit www.xxx to review terms of service before purchase". But software bought electronically, and most other EULA for online services such as paypal, facebook, etc, will have a "click-through" that gives you the opportunity to not agree, not receive the product, not make the payment, and not be bound by the terms.
I was addressing the latter in my previous post, which is a lot more common, although this thread did start out more discussing adobe software, which is often physically purchased. (although the last four customers I've helped install adobe software for have all downloaded digitally after clicking through the TOS)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score:5, Insightful)
Or use Google Chrome. It has an Google-built PDF reader and Google-managed Flash updates. You never have to touch an Adobe installer ever again.
But if you're anti-EULA, Foxit is no help. Point of comparison: The Foxit EULA [foxitsoftware.com] is 3,683 words long. The Adobe section in Google Chrome's EULA [google.com] (which covers Flash) is 2,476. Google Chrome's ToS in the EULA is 3,983 words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sumatra [kowalczyk.info] doesn't seem to have a EULA at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it is. However, you only read the GPL, Apache license and BSD liceses ONCE, and use several dozen pieces of software that reuse those licenses.
Adobe's products may change their EULA on every version, so you'd need to re-read them over and over.
And this slashdot article... (Score:4, Funny)
If 1000 people each spend 5 minutes reading TFS, skimming the comments, and trolling a little here and there, that's 3.17 days *demanded* PER article! A dozen articles a day, and that's like a zillion DAYS A DAY!
Hyperbole much?
Beginning Phase Two of Evil Plan (Score:3)
If 1000 people each spend 5 minutes reading TFS, skimming the comments, and trolling a little here and there, that's 3.17 days *demanded* PER article! A dozen articles a day, and that's like a zillion DAYS A DAY!
That's nothing! Have you seen any of my book [slashdot.org] reviews [slashdot.org]? Between Bennett Haselton and myself we're destroying English speaking civilization one inane wall of text at a time. Muahahahaha!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that slashdot is not a legal requirement for anything. EULAs purport to be.
EULA;DR (Score:2)
There's a ToS;DR [tos-dr.info] campaign to end unreadable ToS/Eulas or provide ways of getting useful summaries of them. Check out their List of ToS [tos-dr.info].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there's no need for all this fuss, anyway. If people weren't educated stupid evil, Time Cube's 4 simultaneous days per 24 hour rotation would save them from dumb evil stupid Word EULA.
and then again how long are US bills and laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
and then again how long are US bills and laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
My girlfriend showed me her divorce papers. The paperwork determining ownership of their house, belongings, financial obligations, and custody of their children was far shorter than what I was asked to read for an updated EULA on Netflix, so I could simply watch another episode of the IT Crowd...
Re: (Score:2)
She had a husband. They divorced 2 years before I met her. Now you can sleep soundly without worry.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? (Score:4, Informative)
Now you can sleep soundly without worry.
Not unless you've killed all the clowns and grounded the black helicopters he can't!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of citizenship like a license to live in a country and laws are the EULA you accept to get that "license".
Who read and understand all the laws of the country he reside in?
Now consider the time wasted on... (Score:2)
.....updates, upgrades, caused to learn a different way to do what you already knew how to do, etc......and patches because of......why?
If we billed for the time, to those we buy from that cost us this additional time.... how long would they be in business?
Get Over It (Score:3)
-- The Eagles
People should start billing at Attorney rates for (Score:2)
People should start billing at Attorney rates for there time reading stuff like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by your reading comprehension it seems a bit more reading would be in order.
Why click without reading? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, is there any point in reading a EULA or any other online agreement? Seems like every one I've even skimmed has a provision that the agreement can be unilaterally changed -- by the company, not the consumer -- at any time simply by posting a new version somewhere. It's the consumer's responsibility, according to the agreement, to periodically check back and diff the two versions to see if there's something added/deleted/changed. So you might as well click, because even if you are OK with the terms, they can change at any time. Read it or not, the agreement you virtually signed today can be something different tomorrow. The one you read is only valid for the time it takes you to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian law actually considers this. IANAL, but I think they use a "reasonable person" test, e.g., you are bound to what a "reasonable person" would.
Of course, the judge gets to decide what that means, but I think it's well established nobody reads the things.
Re:Why click without reading? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft convinced me they do NOT want me to read their EULA!
I was upgrading online and decided to read the EULA. I read and read and read and finally they disconnected me from the upgrade window for lack of activity.
Don't think I got half way through the EULA, let alone understanding what I read or its implications.
And Microsoft no doubt wonders why I distrust them. They certainly distrust me. This dooms companies
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite is clicking "agree" to the blank Steam agreement popup when installing a game. It takes a couple of seconds to load so I always "agree" to.... agree
Re: (Score:2)
True, but if the terms are unacceptable to you at the time you install the software, unchecking the "I agree" box is your last chance to bail. Some of these "agreements" are more odious than others.
Fascinating (Score:4, Interesting)
that's 138 lifetimes a day!
Er, right. Is that a lot? It could have been anything and I would have failed to be surprised, since I had no prior impressions on the subject. Telling us that a human's blood vessels would stretch to the moon and back (or whatever it really is) is interesting and surprising because we know how big a space they're usually crammed into. This is just numbers.
Re:Fuzzy math (Score:2)
Fuzzy math is at play here. For example how long does it take to hard boil a 3 minute egg? How long does it take to hard boil a dozen 3 minute eggs in a large pan? Many IT guys for small businesses do the install. Do they read the EULA for each of the dozen machines? Nope. It's the same. Do they download the software for each? Yes if it is too small of an install batch to bother making it part of a Image install file.
In many places the end user never sees the EULA. This trims down some of the years
Statistics (Score:3)
It doesn't work the way you think it does.
It could be worse (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, if you buy a $1 candy bar every Sunday, that's $52 a year! But wait, there's more. If everybody in Detroit, MI bought a candy bar every Sunday, that would be $36,742,420 a year! And if they bought THREE candy bars, then OMG! That's $110,227,260 per year! And OH EM GEE, IF THEY PAID 7% SALES TAX THAT WOULD BE $7,715,908.20 IN TAXES A YEAR FROM CANDY BARS!
ERMAHGERD, NERMBERS!
Re: (Score:3)
But you're not legally liable to buy a Snickers bar, whereas you are legally bound to follow the terms of the EULA. It's not optional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am even legally allowed to download a pirated version of any software and run it without any type of explicit license.
Let me guess - you live in China?
Insanity should not be respected... (Score:5, Funny)
I click, because if I am ever sued over an EULA, I will demand a jury. And demand that the jury read the EULA. I will then provide them an updated EULA before the trial is over. And demand they read that as well. If I feel the jury is still, not convinced of the fact that EULAs should be non-enforceable. I will provide a third update.
If I lose my case, then I know this world is so utterly insane....that what I do doesn't really matter. And I will ensure the publisher of the EULA is eradicated from this insane holo-simulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Insanity has nothing to do with whether or not you will lose a case. The only thing that matters is if you can afford a better lawyer than the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Much agreed...
Insanity, factors into, what one does after one loses a crazy case. Do you take...or do you start singing "We're not going to take it!" and suddenly find yourself wearing a V for Vendetta mask.
Just remember, employees are normal people, often who dislike their companies' own policies but have need of a bread check. Don't take vengeance out upon innocents. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
We also learned from Dotcom that whether or not you can get the feds to bankrupt your opponent out of hiring a good lawyer also has a significant influence on who will win.
Re: (Score:3)
Likewise, another argument. I email every one who send me email, that in order to do so, they are subject to a license agreement in which their very souls become my possession, and all material possessions - and since companies are people too, they are subject as well.
Since Adobe sent me an email after I sent them the license notification. They are now subject to my license terms. Yes, it's stupid. But it's essentially what EULAs do.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - I guess that if your "Jury of peers" have actually ever had to install any Adobe software, you've got a pretty good chance of being in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I think Apple's iTunes is FAR worse than Adobe.
Adobe downloads in seconds - iTunes downloads a 100 times the data. Plus always wants "new" versions of QuickTime and what not.
Uh... no. (Score:3)
The article then goes to use some creative math to imply that it must be virtually impossible to accomplish by assuming it takes 10 minutes to read, multiplying that by 8 million downloads per day, and then converting that to years, saying that it works out to 1522 years
However... this is wrong.
It's bad math. Bad in the sense that it ignored significant figures, and bad as anyone who respects dimensional analysis can affirm.
10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day.
The number of minutes per year can be easily calculated by multipying 60 times 24 times 365.25 = 525,960 minutes per year.
If we divide 80,000,000 user-minutes per day by 525,960 minutes per year, the result is in man-years per day, and is roughly 152.1. This figure is a full order of magnitude less than the figure they claimed. It's obvious that they slipped up on a decimal point somewhere.
However... 152.1 man-years is not the same thing as 152.1 years. And since that's still being split across 8 million people, it ends up still coming out to that same old 10 minutes per person. Many of them would simply have to be happening simultaneously, of course.
Again, however, I'm not suggesting that many people actually read the EULA or even that most people read it... only pointing out that the apparent absurdity that it could not reasonably happen is actually a deduction based on a fallacy. 80 million minutes works out to This sounds like a lot... but remember, again... that's split across 8 million people, so each one of them would still only take 10 minutes to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I believe that many people actually read the EULA.... I'm just pointing out
Re: (Score:2)
And again, I'm not suggesting that they do... only pointing out the flawed math, and showing that it's actually *highly* possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, the reasoning above is still valid, and their ignoring of the fact that it is 80 million USER-minutes, not 80 million minutes, is still valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the article *DID* mention a working period of 24 hours a day... and mentioned a total of 1552 years as a result... a full order of magnitude different than my calculation. It then proceeded to factor that into a typical work day and gave a result based on that as well.
But the primary thrust of my comment was not so much on the significant figure error, as it was on the actually logical error of multiplying the number of downloads times the time spent reading and directly equating that to how l
8 million A DAY? (Score:3)
8 million a day seems a little absurd.
There are only 7 billion people on the planet, and the vast majority of them don't dwell on the internet.
For those who do, I'd guess that they watch a youtube video once and voila, they don't need to install flash again*.
*Then again, it does seem like adobe patches air, pdf, and flash 600 times/day (for functionally the same bloody software that's been installed for 10 years...), so maybe the math DOES work out.
i didn't know reading was additive (Score:2)
it would be far better to say that 1 person is presented with 20 EULAs on a daily basis. at 10 min a piece, what 1 person wants to read that
wishes (Score:3)
The article. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scraping the barrel today, aren't we? (Score:3)
OMG! Imagine how many years have been wasted to like, fucking Atlas Shrugged man.. If everyone who read it took like, 30 hours to read it that'd be like, a million years in wasted man hours. Whaooo...
It reminds me of those anti piracy studies that take some figure out of their ass, multiply it by the number of downloads of Rihanna albums on a few BT trackers and then claims that's what they've lost in revenue this year.
Summary (Score:3)
Would it be possible to make a human-readable short summary of the core idea of the particular EULA, followed by the actual text?
For example: "By accepting these terms, you agree not to disassemble, modify or redistribute this software. It is provided to you as is, without any warranty. For details, the complete end user agreement follows."
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what the preamble to the GPL does.
Propose a word limit on EULAs (Score:2)
I say we place one on EULAs and similar legal documents. Limit on total word count, and total time to read count. Since people read at diffrent speeds, I propose the following calculation.
15 min of reading time at 50% percentile reading speed, or no more than 30 min at one standard deviation below the mean.
If they want me to read that... (Score:2)
I want a signing bonus!
Re: (Score:2)
I will also propose a new licence agreement:
We are God with regards to this product and anything you put into it or it does to or with your system or business. In exchange for this product merely existing, or having existed on your system you wave all rights past, present, and future. By agreeing to this, we own your ass and everything in it. If you sue us, that is fine, we own your bank accounts too.
"...the text that we all blindly agree to..." (Score:2)
Wrong. We do not "all blindly agree".
I'M CLEARLY A N00B (Score:2)
But how long is that in.... (Score:2)
But how long is that in parsecs?
Seriously. If it takes me 10 minutes to read and understand it, then it take me 10 minutes to read and understand it. The fact that millions of other people are doing the same thing holds no value other than Adobe is wasting our time.
To watch (and understand?) an episode of Seinfeld takes 22 minutes. There were 180 episodes. With a made up average of 50 million people watched those episodes. That means that I'm creating a really big number but with no actual value other than
I don't care about your EULA bitches! (Score:2)
I do what I want. You don't know me. oh wait, wrong show.
I don't read EULA because I don't care what they say. I will do what I want, with the software on my computer, how I want. You want to stop me? Take me to court. Sure, I got better things to do, but court only will cost me time, it will cost you money. I'm poor, I'm disabled, so you can't garnish my wages (don't have any), you can't touch my SS (haha), and if you throw me in jail, I will become a poster boy (or older dude) for how fucked u
Better question... (Score:2)
How much time would one person waste reading all the EULAs (s)he has to agree to?
You're being set up to fail. (Score:2)
Doesn't surprise me. Things aren't much better with commercial software, where you may or may not be allowed to install multiple copies subject to various conditions, they provide you with a certificate of authenticity on the box but will only recognise an invoice if you get audited and while you probably throw out invoices after the statute of limitations for tax law has expired, you're a bit buggered if you do this for software you want to use longer than the statute of limitations.
But nobody told the acc
Re: (Score:2)
What's "impossible" about eight million people each spending ten minutes at a pointless exercise?
There are plenty of reasons to disregard EULAs. "It's literally impossible to read it" is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is also the notion that an EULA bears only explicit agreement from one party, which generally isn't enough to call it a true contract in writing. A unilaterally binding agreement is not really a contract in the strictest sense. When combined with the actual act of purchasing, one could try to argue that the entire transaction (that concludes with the agreement to the EULA) constitutes some form of contract, but I doubt that in a legal sense that would be held up as a broad interpretation of the cont