> Just send them your own EULA at "purchase" if you think that unilateral terms no one reads should be binding on the other party.

I've heard, explicitly from lawyers, that sending an automated process (like a website) amendments to their EULA won't hold up at all in court. It's clear that the EULA is take it or leave it, and throwing changes at something that you know will ignore them doesn't accomplish anything.

It'd be nice if we could do it, but it doesn't fit into the reality of law.

It is also clear that few people read EULAs, so the courts should declare them invalid and apply the basic copyright law.

The difference between that and sending your "modifications" back is that you have an explicit, intentional choice to make: accept the EULA or don't use the site.

I think that the walls of text do need to be reigned in in acceptance of the fact that it's absurd to hire a lawyer to review all of those contracts, but I also somewhat sympathize with courts' opinions of "So you think you could just use the product and the contract doesn't apply to you because you didn't want to... Read?"

Most of those EULAs are saying what should be common sense. The law should just give me those rights, but because copyright hasn't caught up to the digital age and software we need something that allows me to copy into computer memory.

Anything that isn't 'common sense' needs to be a contract that a lawyer reviews for me