Some end-user licensing agreements accompany shrunken software, which is sometimes presented to a user on paper or, in general, electronically during the installation process. The user has the choice to accept or refuse the agreement. The installation of the software depends on the user clicking a button called «accept.» See below. Recently, publishers have begun encrypting their software packages to prevent the user from installing the software without accepting the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts. [Citation required] End-user licensing agreements are usually lengthy and written in very specific legal language, making it more difficult for the average user to give informed consent. [3] When the company designs the end-user licensing agreement in such a way as to deliberately deter users from reading it and is difficult to understand, many users may not give their informed consent. The 7th. And the 8th circuit subscribe to the argument «licensed and not sold», when most other circuits are not necessary. In addition, the applicability of contracts depends on the adoption by the state of the laws of uniformity of transactions on computer information (UCITA) or the anti-UCITA (U-BombATION Shelter) Act. In the anti-UCITA states, the Single Code of Commerce (UCC) has been amended to explicitly define the software as a good (which places it in the UCC), i.e. to prohibit contracts that stipulate that the terms of the contract are governed by the laws of a state that existed in DIE UCITA. Whether Shrink-Wrap licences are legally binding differs between legal systems, although the majority of jurisdictions have these licences to be enforceable. In particular, this is the disagreement between two U.S.

courts in the Klocek/. Bridge and Brower v. Gateway. In both cases, it was a reduced licensing document provided by the online provider of a computer system. The conditions of the shrinking licence were not provided at the time of purchase, but were included in the product delivered as a printed document. The license required the customer to return the product within a limited time frame if the licence was not agreed. In Brower, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the terms of the reduced licence document were applicable because the customer`s consent is evident by not returning the goods within 30 days of the document. The U.S. District Court of Kansas in Klocek decided that the sales contract had been entered into at the time of the transaction, and the additional delivery terms contained in a document similar to Brower`s were not a contract, since the customer never accepted them when the sale contract was entered into. Some licenses[5] claim to prohibit users from disclosing data on the performance of the software, but this has yet to be challenged in court. A free software license gives users of this software the right to use, modify and redistribute creative works and software that are both copyrighted and generally not licensed with proprietary software.