Contracts

[BrandonR]

Hello, often times while downloading a software update, signing a loan, etc. one will come across a contract that says not to sign (or check in agreement online) unless you have read ALL of the privacy policy/use policies, which are typically pages long containing quite obvious information.

So I’m wondering, is it sinful to not read these contracts before signing? It is just sooooo time consuming and rather pointless to read the entire thing. Could this be a mortal sin?

Thank you

 

[DexUK]

I can’t see any way in which it would be sinful.

Unwise perhaps, if you got caught out by something you’d agreed to do (or not do) but hadn’t bothered finding out about, but I can’t think of any category in which it would, in itself, be sinful to agree to something like a software contract without reading it first.

 

[BrandonR]

I can’t see any way in which it would be sinful.

Unwise perhaps, if you got caught out by something you’d agreed to do (or not do) but hadn’t bothered finding out about, but I can’t think of any category in which it would, in itself, be sinful to agree to something like a software contract without reading it first.

because when it’s worded like “I have read and agree to the terms above” wouldn’t it be consdidered a lie?

 

[DexUK]

I suppose you could say that technically it’s a lie.

Essentially you’re saying “I can’t be bothered to read this, but I’ll agree to it anyway and take whatever’s coming to me if I do something wrong”. Unless you deliberately mean to break the terms of the contract and use the product illicitly to the detriment of someone else (publisher, author, etc) then no harm happens.

If there’s a sin in that, then it’s highly unlikely to be anything more than only ‘slightly’ venial. What’s more I’ve done it a thousand times! I think you’d have to be suffering a very bad case of scruples to be bothered by it. In general anyone who did this would have absolutely no intention of sinning.

 

[Just_Lurking]

See here for what you might be missing if you don’t read the online contract.

 

[JohnDamian]

Posting that you have read AND agree with the terms and conditions would constitute a sin against the Eighth commandment; which in conjunction with consent and knowlege would constitute a mortal sin.

 

[DexUK]

Posting that you have read AND agree with the terms and conditions would constitute a sin against the Eighth commandment; which in conjunction with consent and knowlege would constitute a mortal sin.

Only if it is grave matter, and accepting the terms of a contract without necessarily reading them first is highly unlikely to be. Also, there is no intention to sin.

 

[agnes_therese]

I don’t see it as being mortal sin, by any means. But it’s certainly unwise – why would you agree to something you haven’t read?

 

[DexUK]

I suppose if I deliberately sought out contracts to accept without reading, then it’s possible that I’m deliberately letting myself in for consequences that might harm me or others. But in general, for things like software, the terms are down to civil law and generally to do with warranties for fitness for a particular purpose. In other words it’s lawyers being paid vast amounts of money to write a contract that tells you what you should, by virtue of your intelligence and conscience, already know…

I.e. Don’t pirate it or copy it, don’t have unreasonable expectations of the product, don’t expect to be the only person allowed to use particular software and to agree to abide by these terms under the laws of a very particular jurisdiction.

It’s worth mentioning that there are many campaigns to get these sorts of ultra-wordy contracts cut down to readable lengths because they’re deliberately written to be so long and unwieldy that nobody in their right mind would ever actually sit down and read every word (and understand them) just because they wanted to install some software that allows you to add up a row of numbers.

Basically, such agreements aren’t necessary to read if you’re a reasonable person acting in a reasonable way. They’re so long because the lawyers want to cover every possible permutation and combination of unreasonable behaviour by unreasonable people, just in case one or other party decides to sue.

Provided you have no intention of acting unreasonably, no grave matter exists by not reading these types of contract.

 

[TheQuestioner]

No it’s not a sin, not even venial. Those words are for legal purposes so that the author can sue you if you do something wrong. You have no moral duty to actually read the contract. A legal one, yes, but not a moral one.

 

[didymus]

A sin against prudence?

The EULA is pretty much standard & you could click on that w/o reading or just a glance to make sure it is the standard boilerplate promising not to copy, distribute, reverse-engineer, &c.

The anti-privacy policies are where you have to watch out. I’ve stopped installing some freewares because it looked like the “privacy” policy was giving them the right to mine my address books.

Last, if a program gives you the option of also installing a toolbar – don’t!

Here’s another question: if you have agreed in one of these “privacy” policies (in effect signed a contract) to let these programs put tracking cookies on you, direct ads/pop-ups your way, &c but then use Firefox extensions, Spybot S&D, CCleaner, &c. to delete all the junk you’ve agreed to*** is that a sin***?

 

[DexUK]

I would imagine that there’s a good moral defence in that sort of situation of ‘unfair [or unreasonable] contract terms’.

 

[thistle]

Hello, often times while downloading a software update, signing a loan, etc. one will come across a contract that says not to sign (or check in agreement online) unless you have read ALL of the privacy policy/use policies, which are typically pages long containing quite obvious information.

So I’m wondering, is it sinful to not read these contracts before signing? It is just sooooo time consuming and rather pointless to read the entire thing. Could this be a mortal sin?

Thank you

Its not a sin but its pretty stupid to accept/sign a contract without reading and understanding it.

 

[roveau]

You have to read and agree to those terms every time you join something too and you have no choice because if you don’t click the box, you don’t get in.

I’ll have to admit that I think about it every time. Mostly I will scroll through the pages so that I have at least seen the writing. It’s mostly written in legalise which I certainly don’t understand. But it is all a formality to protect themselves… not us - and as such I just tick the box. The bottom line for me is that it is impractical to read and you don’t get a choice because you either tick the box or miss out. Finally, it is none of their business whether we read it or not because by ticking we agree to their terms anyway.

 

[otjm]

Not every act has a moral dimension. That is, not every act can be categorized in terms of sinfulness or not-sinfulness.

The legal strictures in such a contract are a legal issue; violating them may cause legal repercussions; but that does not presume that there is a moral component to such. For example: you may not reproduce the software and sell it.

Let’s assume for the minute that you did not read the contract, hit the “accept” button, and later reproduced it for a friend and charged enough to cover costs (the CD) and labor. Then you somehow were “found out” and charged legally with doing so (not criminally, but in terms of a civil penalty).

The three components of a sin are that it has to be morally seriously wrong (this isn’t), you have to know it, and you have to intend to do wrong.

You had no intent, therefore you could not have sinned. And not reading it is of no moral consequences; and extremely likely of no legal consequences.

 

[DexUK]

Otjm, I think you pick an incorrect example, since there is a moral dimension to enabling someone to receive the benefits of something for which they did not pay, or for which the original author did not receive recompense while retaining access to those same benefits oneself… (It’s piracy, in other words, which is most definitely sinful, since it’s theft, either directly or indirectly).

A better example would be a licence that says a person may not sell on a piece of software without permission (I’ve read such terms).

A person who blindly accepted such a licence and then went on to sell on the software while not keeping a copy for himself might get himself into legal trouble but wouldn’t have sinned since this IS a situation where the intent to sin did not exist.

Piracy IS an intentional act and it only needs simple human reason to determine that it’s the wrong thing to do.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

See here for what you might be missing if you don’t read the online contract.

Aw snap, just imagine the disappointment at the pearly gates, “I’m sorry Mr. Smith you can’t come in because you sold your immortal soul to gamestation”.

 

[otjm]

Otjm, I think you pick an incorrect example, since there is a moral dimension to enabling someone to receive the benefits of something for which they did not pay, or for which the original author did not receive recompense while retaining access to those same benefits oneself… (It’s piracy, in other words, which is most definitely sinful, since it’s theft, either directly or indirectly).

A better example would be a licence that says a person may not sell on a piece of software without permission (I’ve read such terms).

A person who blindly accepted such a licence and then went on to sell on the software while not keeping a copy for himself might get himself into legal trouble but wouldn’t have sinned since this IS a situation where the intent to sin did not exist.

Piracy IS an intentional act and it only needs simple human reason to determine that it’s the wrong thing to do.

The OP asked if it was a mortal sin. It is not, and in most circumstances would not be. It is not piracy, as that is far beyond copying something for a friend; it is massive duplication. We are talking about someone simply not reading the entire contract (which was the actual question).

As to being a mortal sin, the issue comes in of weighing the damage done against the individual (here, a large corporation); moral law sees a difference between taking without permission for someone who has little, and from someone who has great.

Further, there are still individuals out there who have no perception whatsoever that duplication of software may have any moral implications. No understanding of the moral dimension of duplicating equates with no sin. Once the awareness of the wrongness of the act, then the duplicator may have some moral issues, but people who duplicate for a friend are not doing so to the level of a mortal sin.

 

[DexUK]

As to being a mortal sin, the issue comes in of weighing the damage done against the individual (here, a large corporation); moral law sees a difference between taking without permission for someone who has little, and from someone who has great.

Further, there are still individuals out there who have no perception whatsoever that duplication of software may have any moral implications. No understanding of the moral dimension of duplicating equates with no sin. Once the awareness of the wrongness of the act, then the duplicator may have some moral issues, but people who duplicate for a friend are not doing so to the level of a mortal sin.

While you’re right that this is a diversion from the original question, which I think has been answered fully already, I really must take issue with your statement that the gravity of theft is related to whether the person stolen from has a lot or a little.

The Catechism states that grave matter consists in the moral law and that law is such that human reason alone is enough to perceive it.

While theft may be the only possibility in extremis - that is to say when a starving man sees food that he cannot afford he may purloin enough of it to meet his needs since in the cases of ultimate need all necessary goods may be deemed to be held in common - nobody could say the copying of a computer program is normally intrinsically linked to the protection of the life of a person. Since legitimate possession of commercial computer programs or most music would normally require payment in order to do so, it doesn’t need a genius to work out that then copying to allow someone else to possess that music or computer program is wrong, therefore your example is wholly incorrect.

You are right in saying that there are people out there who claim to not realise that copying something is wrong, but that doesn’t mean they’re free of guilt. It just means they’re lazy in their thinking or making excuses because, as I’ve stated above, it should be completely obvious to anyone that looks that it IS wrong to do such a thing.

Copying something for a friend is wrong. It’s theft on the part of the friend who uses the product of someone else’s labour without adequate recompense as well as theft (or accomplice to theft) in respect of the party which copies. Whether or not the originator of the product is a one-mand-band or a huge corporation, one still derives illicit benefit for something that, in the case of software, may have cost several hundreds of dollars to obtain legitimately. And that means the theft is in the order of that same amount of money. Microsoft Office may cost, say, $400. I think that any priest would consider the theft of $400 a considerably grave sin. It is NOT a trivial matter.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Its not a sin but its pretty stupid to accept/sign a contract without reading and understanding it.

I wanted to buy an app for my i-phone the other day. Suddenly I had one of those tick boxes saying “I have read all the terms and conditions”…It was about 9000 pages long of size 6 font. Are people really expected to read it all? I never do - I don’t have the time and it’s pretty standard in most consumer transactions now.