Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Terms of Embarrassment

By Ed Foster, Section Columns
Posted on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:46:44 AM PDT

One of the best ways to rid ourselves of bad terms is to hold their purveyors up to a little public embarrassment. So this week we examine another collection of egregious EULA provisions that readers have spotted. Cast your vote for the worst of them all, and let's see how many of them we can make disappear.


You might recall that among the outrageous terms that went away after readers pointed them out was Hilton's "we own all your information" privacy policy. But while Hilton did remove the most offensive privacy terms, some other bizarre legal language remains in its website usage agreement. For example, in its "Release" section, the Hilton website terms describe California's Section 1542 and similar laws that say you don't give up claims you don't yet know about. But Hilton says:

"Nevertheless, it is your intention, through this Agreement, and with the advice of counsel, fully and finally settle and release all such matters, and all claims relative thereto, which do now exist, may exist, or have existed between and among the parties hereto, including the Indemnified Parties. You hereby acknowledge that you have been advised by your legal counsel, understand and acknowledge the significance and consequence of this release and of this specific waiver of Section 1542 and other such laws."

So even the most casual of visitors browsing a Hilton-related website is supposed to have retained counsel in order to give up their legal rights? While Section 1542 releases aren't all that uncommon in EULAs, I haven't seen any others where you agree you've consulted an attorney. Of course, EULA writers like to push the envelope in a number of areas like this. One reader spotted an "equitable relief" section in the EULA for Sierra's Hallmark Card Studio Deluxe 2004:

"You hereby agree that Sierra would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this License Agreement were not specifically enforced, and therefore you agree that Sierra shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License Agreement, in addition to such other remedies as Sierra may otherwise have available to it under applicable laws."

In other words, said the reader, it would seem that Sierra can do anything it wants to you. Another reader, knowing my fondness for censorship clauses, pointed out one that goes beyond the typical restrictions on publishing benchmarks. The EULA for Micromuse's Netcool product states:

"No benchmark results nor results of any functional testing or evaluation of the Program shall be disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose other than to facilitate Licensee's internal use of the Program."

If you can't disclose your evaluation of the program to any third party, the reader wondered if she was violating the EULA by telling me what she thinks of their censorship clause. What if she wanted to recommend the software to a friend at another company - would that also be prohibited?

Spyware EULAs no doubt deserve their own separate rogues' gallery, but there's one I feel compelled to include because of its resemblance to the EULA-wrapped "FriendGreetings" virus of a few years back. Today's EULA for Avenue Media's Internet Optimizer states that:

"In consideration for viewing of video content, Avenue Media may send email to your Microsoft Outlook contacts and/or send instant messages to your IM contacts offering the video to them on your behalf. By viewing the video content, you expressly consent to said activity."

Finally, there's one more term I have to include, even though we've talked about it before. That's because - at least insofar as I can tell - we haven't been able to embarrass Autodesk yet into changing the AutoCad EULA. So customers who don't owe Autodesk a cent are still subject to losing their license because of any financial difficulties:

"No Assignment, Insolvency. This Agreement and any rights hereunder are non-assignable and any purported assignment shall be void. The Agreement and the licenses granted hereunder shall terminate without further notice or action by Autodesk if You become bankrupt or insolvent, make an arrangement with Your creditors or go into liquidation."

So which of those five fine-print horrors do you think is the worst? In the righthand column here you can answer that question in my reader poll, see the poll results, and post your comments about this story. And don't worry about any of the vendors' feelings here -- when you deal in bad terms such as these, you deserve all the embarrassment you get.

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.

< Dell's SC Return Policy | Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged >


Display: Sort:
Terms of Embarrassment | 38 comments (38 topical) | Post A Comment
Spamware[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:27:43 AM PDT

I think we need a new name for software that will surreptitiously (unless something buried deep in sneakwrap informing users of the behavior makes it not count as surreptitious) mail or IM your contacts, but isn't an email worm of the usual sort or a "zombie" trojan. How about "Spamware"?

[ Reply to This ]


Its even worse ![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by pmbaker on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:41:32 AM PDT

I think that there are bits even worse. There is the "you cannot look at this site if you are a minor", or the "you must keep your password safe, but we don't have to", or "whatever we send to you is ours, but whatever you send to us is still ours". The whole agreement basically translates to "Don't even think about blaiming us for for anything because it will all be your fault for daring to use our site". It is as if visitors to the site are nasty inconveniences that have to put up with. The highlight about retaining council to give up your legal rights is a good one, but I think the beginning of this Agreement goes further. "...you should consult your own attorney...for advice concerning the terms and conditions of this Agreement..." It appears you should consult an attorney to just use the site. With an Agreement like this, a better suggestion than consulting an attorney is to go to another site that welcomes your visit and actually wants your custom.

[ Reply to This ]


MyPersonalEula[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:31:26 AM PDT

By reading this post, or by viewing my picture or other information about me on the internet, newspaper, television, or other media, or by looking at me when you pass me on the street, or by thinking about me, or by sharing the planet with me, you hereby agree to deposit unlimited payments to my bank account, at my discretion and instruction. Failure to comply with said agreement constitutes a violation of the EULA, and is punishable by a penalty up to and including five years of confinement with an Autocad legal attorney involved in prosecuting EULA "violations".

[ Reply to This ]


Response[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 03:31:10 PM PDT

AMEN!!!!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


MyPersonalEULA[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by zorrojd on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:53:24 AM PDT

Now THAT'S funny! What's not funny is that we may be getting closer to a time like that than we would like to think.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


EULA response[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by mac on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:07:30 AM PDT

The only real response to such abusive EULA's is to actually refuse to use such software or site. Eventually they will suffer for letting their lawyers run their operation. There are enough situations where we have no choice but to use the product--but these aren't them.

The reason the EULAs are so abusive is understandable: The court system in the USA has become so unreasonable that corporate lawyers scramble to find restrictive language sufficient to protect companies from abusive lawsuits. The problem is, one's corporate lawyers will *always* advise one-sided agreements and terms on everything you do--if you do exactly what your corporate lawyer says all the time, you'll often offend your customers, potential customers, and suppliers and partners enough to interfer with your business.

And, please, if a politician runs for office claiming he'll try to reform the legal system in this area--vote for him!

--mac mccarthy

[ Reply to This ]



That's the system[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

Abusive and frivilous lawsuits are a problem, but it comes down to the fact that this is simply the way contracts are done. The originator always writes a one-sided contract. The other party refuses the original terms and between the two they eventually come to some mutually agreeable (or at least mutually tolerable) compromise. The problem with EULAs is that there is no such "meeting of the minds". We have to agree to the terms as written, with no chance for negotiation. And thus, the EULA "contract" that started out one-sided stays one-sided. Lawyers are so used to writing contracts this way, and EULA writers have gotten away with such egregious terms for so long, that the problem has simply escalated beyond all sense.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Not the way it is always done[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:20:43 PM PDT

That is not the way things are always done. When we negotiate with a customer, we try to put language together that is mutually beneficial. There are certainly some things that get written into our contracts that have to be there to protect us, but we don't go into our contract proposals with purely one-sided, benefits all accrue to us, none to you attitudes.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


EULA - Onesided[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:51:37 PM PDT

Actually, having been involved recently in another legal issue, I've found that there is a legal concept of onesidedness - if a contract is so onesided as to benefit one party to the exclusion of the other or is clearly unfair, it is not enforceable. The key here, then, is to do what most people do with EULAs - ignore them. Unless, of course, you feel them fair and equitable. As others suggest, though, take your business elsewhere. Frankly, there are too damn many lawyers with way too much time on their hands. I think many businesses would not even have a EULA but for lawyers. Hmmm - Maybe we should take Shakespeare's suggestions to heart..

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Email address stolen[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by auctionhugh on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:39:11 AM PDT

I know this is TOTALLY the wrong place to post this. Anyway, I use MailShell for assigning a unique email address to every site I give my email to.

Over the last six months, I have started getting spam to these email addresses. There are only a few possible explanations: My email addresses have been sold to spammers, or the company's email database has been stolen by hackers.

I have confronted these companies with this information and they have vehemently denied either thing happening. Some of these are very well known retailers.

Of course I have no remedy. It is very frustrating. Thankfully with MailShell I can one-click block all email to those unique addresses. But still, it is stinky, and 99% of folks give their primary email address to retailers.

-----
Get help with your website from AuctionHugh's wife Kathleen.
Professional, artistic, and EASY for you!
Kallen Web Design of Kalamazoo



[ Reply to This ]



Get a clue[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:59:09 AM PDT

Notice that you've posted your email address IN THE CLEAR as part of your name on Ed's site. Anyone that browses this site can easily copy your name and use it to send you spam.

I think it highly unlikely that anyone has hacked Ed's emaill address list, and I FIRMLY believe that Ed would not sell or give away email addresses.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Bots Do The Browsing[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:43:22 AM PDT

It's not people that browse sites looking for email addresses, it's software "bots" that look for the telltale "@" on sites. That's how spammers get email addresses, among a myriad of other schemes.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Thank you, I'm not a moron[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by auctionhugh on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:36:15 PM PDT

...although my posting may have been a bit unclear.

I am of course getting tons of spam to my gripemail address, so I just change it every month or so and one-click stop it from ever getting to my inbox (thanks Mailshell).

Rather I am talking about giving shakersvodka.com my address for example, and then getting a ton of spam to the unique email address I gave them when I signed up for a freebie there. And I'm talking virus spam, not just ads.

But thank you for your concern.

-----
Get help with your website from AuctionHugh's wife Kathleen.
Professional, artistic, and EASY for you!
Kallen Web Design of Kalamazoo



[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Thanks for the correction[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeff Foster on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:54:01 PM PDT

Next time you'd like to bring up a new topic, please post a Live Gripe. That's what its there for.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Spammers are using random user names[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:13:08 PM PDT

I'm not surprised. I run a small mail server, and in recent months, there has been a large surge in junk activity. We only have a few dozen user mailboxes, and even if they all got junk, it could hardly amount to the numbers of messages we're seeing. But it turns out that the new spam is sent to random user names. These names are just random groupings of numbers and letters; presumably they're hoping to hit real mailboxes this way. I would guess that the spammers have turned to this because CAN-SPAM outlaws scanning for e-mail addresses, and even if it didn't, people are much more careful with the ones that they post. So, I would guess that any mailbox at all will get spam because the spammers are sure to find it sooner or later. (I find it amazing that they can get enough bandwidth to do this sort of sending; somebody must be making a lot of money to allow this...)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


They're not paying for the bandwidth[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous User on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

It doesn't cost these spammers all that much for bandwidth. This is because spammers buy or create zombied machines which have been hijacked by viruses and trojans into being used to send e-mail on their behalf. So they send one command out to thousands of zombies, and the zombies send out millions of e-mails. Twenty thousand 100K transmissions (one message of about 5KB with 95KB of addresses sent to 20,000 zombied machines) would use 20MB of bandwidth, and would, on a 375K outbound DSL connection (which costs $30 a month), take 90 minutes.

Hell, on a 56K dialup connection which costs US$9.95 a month from Netscape or several other companies, it would take less than 8 hours. Some of these spammers have T1 or better connections, which is multi-megabit connections so some of them can send boatloads of spam themselves without even having to use zombies.

The spammer now has 20,000 machines that can send out 60 messages a minute, each. That's 72 million spams an hour, at no cost to the spammer, because once he sends his command to a zombie machine he's finished using any of his own bandwidth, the zombie owners end up providing them the bandwidth to send all the messages for free.

Let's use the Bit Torrent method: have him connect to 200 machines, which they in turn each have 100 machines to relay the message and recipients to, now he can divide his list up into 100 pieces instead of 20,000, and have these relay machines pass the information on to their 200 machines. Thus he can use even less bandwidth.

Paul Robinson
paul at paul-robinson.us

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Autocad is a close second[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Elaine on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:59:05 AM PDT

I voted for the spyware "we can send to your contact list" provision as the worst, but Autocad's "your license terminates if you have financial problems" was a close second. I have seen provisions like that in negotiated license agreements that were for perpetual licenses where the license fee was to be paid in full up front. I always tell the vendor in such cases that there's no justification for terminating a fully-paid license just because the licensee has subsequent financial problems -- and they have always agreed to delete that provision.

[ Reply to This ]


AutoDesk might have problems here...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:22:22 AM PDT

I would be curious if AutoDesk has made this work. The reason is that when you get to the point of Bankruptcy, you start involving judges. And bankruptcy judges have a *lot* of power. They can change contracts and you don't have a lot to say about it. If a bankruptcy judge decided that a copy of autocad was a sellable/tranferable asset, Autodesk would quickly be in contempt of court for *any* action that failed to follow the judges orders. That can get expensive. Just my thought. eric

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Enter Chapter 11, bye, bye AutoCAD[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Ric Werme on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:31:35 PM PDT

From my reading of the EULA and my mediocre understanding of bankruptcy law, I think the intent is that when you enter Chapter 11 you lose the license.  Entering Chapter 11 puts the old company into an odd limbo state and creates a new company, generally with a slightly different name, that starts off with a clean slate.  The bankruptcy judge controls redirecting assets and income.  According to the EULA, the license turns into a pumpkin the moment you enter Chapter 11.

You are right that the judge will take a very dim view of that, it would be an interesting to watch a judge deal with it.

- Ric Werme -- A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, an odd lot of programmers.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Avenue Media[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by dliesse on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:11:34 AM PDT

To me, Avenue Media's terms are far and away the worst. As far as I'm concerned, no vendor has the right to look at anything on my hard drive that is not directly related to the operation of the program. Marketing is their problem, not mine. This is the sort of thing that gives Marketing professionals a bad name, although I'm sure the vast majority of them are honorable.

[ Reply to This ]


EULA "Fair & Balanced"[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:32:30 AM PDT

Since there is no "negotiation" between the parties, the purchaser/licensee of software is at a distinct disadvantage. However, if reviewers such as InfoWorld were to include ratings of the "friendliness" for EULAs in their evaluations, the scales might be balanced a little better. Indeed, if InfoWorld were to refuse to review products where the EULAs are patently inappropriate, perhaps the manufacturers would revert to more reasonable "contracts." Manufacturers and developers (my firm is one) are certainly entitled to protect their IP and protect themselves against unwarranted litigation. But these egregious EULAs do not accomplish that. Gwyl

[ Reply to This ]


EULA revews[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 04:00:45 PM PDT

Or perhaps a better Idea would be an EULA review/translsion site?  If shuch a thing exists, I'd like to see it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


We've got your eula reviews right here...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 02:58:14 PM PDT

EULA reviews can be found right here, on this site.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Avenue Media ... absolutely[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:35:27 AM PDT

Even though they'e not the only one who do it, in the list used in your article, Avenue Media gets my vote for worst EULA hands down ... in my pockets where they don't belong.

[ Reply to This ]


AutoCAD is Most Brazen[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:36:42 AM PDT

I gotta put my vote on AutoCAD for 2 reasons, 1) I am biased as a user and 2) it involves the most cash. An engineering firm might start with the $3,750 or whatever the MSRP is these days AutoCAD and add $5k or 10K of add ons. So now this form has 20 work stations with say $250k of software licenses and their value is immediately cut to $0 as soon as the firm gets into some financial trouble ???? The Hilton stuff is just silly and I can't put it up high cause, like Marriott hotels, I just refuse to stay there anymore. I have booked afew events at Marrioot reserving blocks of rooms and they tell my attndees the "block has been sold out...we have room for ya but at $70 more per night." Then I get the meeting report and the number of rooms we took is 30% below the block even including those who paid a higher number. Unfortunately, AutoCAD's monopoly is more secure than MS's so they must e thinking thay can pretty much do what they want.

[ Reply to This ]


Autodesk, insolvency, and taxes[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Reziac on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:19:42 PM PDT

On closer reading, I think theirs is designed to prevent their software from being sold along with your other assets, in the event that you go bankrupt. (For the purposes of this post, we'll ignore arguments re the Doctrine of First Sale.)

This bring up an interesting question. If their EULA is enforceable, then you cannot resell the software -- meaning it is not an asset. This implies that it can neither be taxed as an asset, and perhaps not depreciated as an expense, either.

However, I wonder if that in turn puts the tax onus (and depreciation credit if any) back on Autodesk, since if it's not YOUR asset, it must be THEIR asset.

I wonder if the IRS would be interested in their EULA. ;)
~REZ~
[ Reply to This ]



Expense vs asset[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:40:24 PM PDT

ACAD may not be an depreciable asset per the EULA but it can be deducted as an expense in the year it is purchased.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


EULA and the IRS[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:46:33 AM PDT

Interesting Take. Another one is to find out if the states/city where these companies are located have a property tax (mine does and according to them software counts as an asset)and let the state know they are entitled to collect taxes on the value of the outstanding licenses because they are still "owned" by the company. I can just see California billing Redmond for property tax on the value of all outstanding Microsoft licenses. Arnold could solve the budget problems with one collection.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


EULAs and the IRS[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:33:52 AM PDT

According to the IRS software counts as a 3-year depreciable asset, unless it is specifically useful for less than a year, such as is the case with tax-prep software. You can't expense it unless it's cheap enough to fly under the radar, and EULA's can't override that. You enter gray area only if the vendor issues you a license enabling you to use the software for a year at a time.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Eulas, IRS etc.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:19:31 AM PDT

If it is a one-time fee for the software, you have to depreciate it over three years. If you pay an annual usage license, that is, in effect, rent and should be expensed. Some software even has both aspects to it. The idea is that the costs (both long term and short term) follow a reasonable useful (tax) life of the software, regardless of who "owns" the asset.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Avenue Media - Has got my vote for sleeze[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:08:26 AM PDT

Yeah this has got to be the The Ultimate in Sleeze. I would hope just because some nut cases write it up in a EULA doesn't mean that they can do what they write. So if they go into your address book that means they can try and get buddy buddy with your banker. Or how about making that withdrawl for you. There must be a legal limit to what a company can claim in a EULA. At first look it would seem like plain scare tactics but I guess one has to test it in the courts in order to find out for sure. This raises the question on who the real "Big Brother" is. It seems that we should be more worried about operations like this one.

[ Reply to This ]


Genuine Disadvantage[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by Alan on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:08:18 AM PDT

Imagine my surprise when I actually entered the Microsoft logo'ed key posted to the bottom of my laptop and was told that my Windows XP program, pre-loaded at the dealership that sold me the laptop, was not legitimate. This computer was purchased from a reputable dealer, who advertises regularly in national magazines, and who charged--what I believed at the time--was an exorbitant price. I'm not a techie. I need the computer for my business. What do I do now, go out and buy another version of XP? I'd like for someone from Microsoft to advise me what they would recommend. Ed, why don't you contact them and ask them specifically what course of action they'd recommend? Should I have my Attorney contact the company that sold the laptop to me? Should I have my Attorney contact Microsoft? Should I sue both the vendor and Microsoft for fraudulent representation? It's going to get pretty interesting for someone when they "turn me off." First stop will be the Attorney General of the State of Washington.

[ Reply to This ]


Re: Genuine Disadvantage[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Ed Foster on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:10:43 PM PDT

Good question. But you got this posted in the wrong story, so we'll post a copy for you with the Windows' Genuinely Disadvantaged story to further the discussion. -- Ed

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The worst of them is...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:52:57 AM PDT

They're all pretty bad but Micromuse can be voided by right of speech ruling, Autodesk can probably be by right of creditors ruling, Hilton can possibly contested on the basis that a simple contract should be understandable without professionnal counsel, Sierra can possibly be voided because they are both judge and party in their ruling and give themselves too much rights to do everything they want.

In all these except the Hilton, they have to take action against you and you can counter them in court. The Avenue media is the worse by far. They take the right to use your personnal information AND your contact's personnal information without direct and discrete approval for each. Then, after the damage has been done, you can sue them ON REPUTATION ISSUES which are very difficult to settle.

Of course, saying spyware companies are worse than others is like saying the ocean is wet...

JR

[ Reply to This ]


FRIENDS[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous User on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 06:47:47 AM PDT

Does it really work? hey, Synchro!

[ Reply to This ]


yes[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#158)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Reply to This ]


Terms of Embarrassment | 38 comments (38 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
3 comments

Thank you
14 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
73 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
8 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
8 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
30 comments

More The Gripelog...

Poll
Which of these terms do you think is the worst?
Hilton's "I've Consulted a Lawyer" Clause
Sierra's "Without Proof of Damages Equitable Remedies" Clause
Micromuse's "No Evaluation of the Program Censorship" Clause
Avenue Media's "We Can E-mail or IM Your Contacts" Clause
Autodesk's "Financial Trouble Equals Termination" Clause

Votes: 339
Results | Other Polls

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
7 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
18 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
33 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
54 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
33 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
18 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News 
 Columnists 
 Tech Watch 
 Test Center Reviews 
 Applications 
 App Development 
 E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
 End-user Hardware 
 Networking 
 Operating Systems 
 Platforms 
 Security 
 Standards & Protocols 
 Storage 
 Telecommunications 
 Wireless 
 Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search