That's basic contract law. Almost every country will have a form of "you bargain for it, you accept it, you're bound by it". However, no, a contract cannot have terms that violate the law. That, however, is part of this discussion.

There is no law (to my knowledge) that prevents a person from installing software onto a user's machine with or without their knowledge. Again, given my knowledge of actual, on-the-books law, software use/installation is, in a sense caveat emptor (or buyer beware -- because there is no law on point).

The proposed legislation seeks to inform the user about software that will be installed; that is, to make it illegal for a company to install certain types of software without informing the user.

So when I said "[c]ompanies can do that now", I was referring to the fact that if there's no law against it, they can add that term as part of the license. If the user accepts it, the user is bound. That touches on the validity of shrinkwrap licenses (terms and conditions imposed on use that the consumer cannot see until after purchase) and whether they are fair to the user, but that's outside the scope of this proposed legislation. The legislation doesn't concern itself about when the user receives notice--only that the user does receive notice.

But that's where the OP and I differ. I don't believe it's granting new practices because there was no law preventing the practice earlier. If there was no law, the company and user are free to bargain on the terms for the software (even though it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation). Once the user accepts, the user is bound.

If someone is aware of a statute/law relevant to the allowed installation of software, please let me know; I'd like to read it. Which also means I'd need a citation/reference to the US code (or a source that would direct me to it).

Side note before I respond: I haven't forgotten about that patent thread I'll be going back to respond about the prior art patent history as soon as I am done with school for this semester.

If I understand what you're saying, the point you're arguing is an issue related to software licensing and not what this legislation provides (notice & consent to software that analyzes personal use). The coercion exists with or without this legislation simply because of the take-it-or-leave-it nature of licensing. Again, that's something companies have been allowed to do for a long time. There are limits though. If terms are "unconscionable" or "against public policy", they can be ignored or thrown out, but it's a very high burden for unconscionability and public policy is very hard to define.

However, my experience with court opinions leads me to disagree with your last statement. The only time notice and consent would ever be implied are for necessity provisions. That is, you are implicitly given notice and providing consent that your video player can send video and audio signals to your TV. That transmission is absolutely necessary to the underlying purpose of the video player. Functions unrelated to the purpose of the product are scrutinized more closely. Greater scrutiny is applied to functions separated by greater amounts from the underlying purpose. I don't have specific case citations for that point, but simply from my exposure to contract case law.

That would be interesting to read about as well. Do you have a link where I can get more info?

Thank you! Thank you very much. I'm sure I'll need a lot of luck. I may have to get you to overnight it to me

To each his own my friend! I'm not bothered by any political stance as long as the person is willing to discuss things calmly and rationally. There are good and bad points for all political ideology, but that's all I'll say about it because I don't want tis to turn into a political thread.

However, I do love playing Devil's Advocate a lot. So, to anyone reading this, please, please, please never take my responses to be personal attacks. I've always liked to understand the reasoning behind people's views. To do that, questions need to be asked and points made that are in direct conflict with previous assertions. Not only do I personally like playing Devil's Advocate, law school forces you to think differently: a lawyer must be able to see and argue all sides of an issue. It's not always a matter of an attorney arguing for his or her convictions; it's a matter of an attorney arguing the law as best as possible to advance the client's interests. That paints an unflattering picture of the profession at times (with the public thinking lawyers are two-faced), and that's putting it nicely.

EDIT:
Sorry for the length of the post everyone, but I'm going to "disappear" until finals are over with, and I wanted to address as much as I could before I vanished. So I leave you all to "discuss"

The law is irrelevant. The bottom line is Sony has a ton of money so they're always right. They can spend three years in court debating what the meaning of the word "is" is while you go bankrupt. Then you lose.

It's just like how political elections are held in America. CNN doesn't even bother with public opinion polls anymore. They know the presidency is something you buy. All that matters is who's raised the most money.