Free Trial
Use Picnam free for 30 days.
Buy Now for only $14.95
45 day satisfaction guarantee
If you are unhappy with Picnam within 45 days of purchase, we will refund your money.
Hunter and Clark use Picnam to manage scanned invoices and timesheets.
More...
"What a great program! I've been goofing off for months with other programs and this is the easiest to use and simple to boot."
Bernhard R.
More...
Information
Installation Instructions
Online Documentation
Managing Scanned Documents
Picnam contains features to make working with scanned documents easier.
More...
Why Text Files?
The most common question people ask about Picnam is "Why did you choose to use text files for comments?" This article gives some of the reasons you might prefer to use text files rather than metadata to store information about your pictures.
More...
Recording Information About Genealogy and Family History Photos
Picnam is ideal for making notes about scanned documents and photos for family history or genealogy.
More...
Preserving Digital Photos
Digital photography makes it easy to take lots of photos, but they are very easily lost. What can you do to make sure your photos survive for years to come?
More...
EULAs Part 1: Do I need a lawyer to buy a CD?
There has been a lot of controversy recently about Sony's implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) on some of their music CDs. Mark Russinovich from Sysinternals discovered what appeared to be a rootkit (a tool used to hack computers) on his computer: http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html
It turned out to be Sony's digital rights management software, which had been installed when Mark played a Sony music CD on the computer. He analyzed what it did, and found a number of disturbing features. The software hid itself on the computer in a way that could be exploited by malicious software. The software itself seemed to be designed to mislead the computer owner about what it was, and it was written in a way that could cause the computer to crash. There was no uninstall function provided, and trying to remove it manually was likely to make your CD drive stop working. At least one person reported that if you tried to play the CD in a 64 bit version of Windows, the CD drive also stopped working.
Sony eventually provided an uninstall mechanism of sorts, however it wasn't long before it was discovered that the uninstall process was worse than the original software. Now Sony has recalled the CDs containing this software, and is being sued by various parties.
This issue has focused a lot of attention on the music business and digital rights management, but it raises another major issue involving End User License Agreements (EULAs). Sony claimed what they did was legitimate because the users had agreed to it in an EULA when they first inserted the CD in their computer. This EULA was about 3000 words or 6 pages long, and as far as I know there was no way to view it prior to buying the CD.
It is very common for software to contain an EULA which you have to agree to before using the software, either by clicking through an initial license screen the first time you use it or even by simply opening the packaging. Updates or bug fixes to software may even have a "supplemental EULA". These agreements set out the conditions of use for the software, what you may do and what you may not do. They are normally complex documents, written in legal language, and 3000 words or more is not unusual. The conditions for use of different software vary greatly, and very few people would be able to tell you what is allowed and what is not allowed for each of the programs they use. Many people pay more than they need to for software because they don't understand the licenses, and many others are accidentally running software illegally.
Some examples of license conditions I have seen show the variety that is possible:
- Software that requires you to purchase a copy for each computer that the software is installed on.
- Software that allows you to install the program on a second computer e.g.. a laptop if it is used by the same person.
- Software that allows you to install the program on more than one computer for use by the same person, HOWEVER you have to buy a separate license for each person that uses the program, even if it is on the same computer.
- Software that requires activation when it is installed. After a certain period of time the vendor will no longer activate old versions of the software. If you need to reinstall the software after that, you can't access your data at all without buying a new copy.
- Software that has a limit to the number of data files, requires you to activate each data file, and requires you to re-activate the data files at random intervals.
These last 2 are particularly bad - your ability to continue using your own data is dependent on the continuing existence of the vendor. Does anyone really believe that people understand all these conditions before they buy the program? Or even after they buy it?
Microsoft licensing is complicated by the fact that they have normal and OEM licenses, with vastly different terms. The OEM licenses are intended for sale with new computer systems and are normally much cheaper than the normal licenses. However it is possible to legitimately buy an OEM version of some products without purchasing a whole computer system.
My understanding of the Microsoft terms is:
OEM licenses:
- Operating systems must be purchased with an item of non-peripheral hardware.
- Other products (e.g. Office) can only be purchased with a complete PC. Exactly what constitutes a complete PC I am not sure - are you allowed to reuse a monitor, mouse or keyboard from an old PC?
- Can be used on one computer only. Again, if you upgrade a PC one part at a time I am not sure when it ceases being the same PC. In practise I suspect the important part is whatever part the license sticker is stuck to.
Full licenses:
- Can be moved from one PC to another
- You may be allowed to install applications on a second PC for the same person, e.g. a desktop and a laptop.
I ran into this issue several years ago, when I wanted to upgrade my computer from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. I found that OEM licenses were several hundred dollars cheaper and investigated what you needed to do to qualify. I found the statement about "non-peripheral hardware", and since I needed to add memory anyway I figured that qualified. The computer shop didn't agree, and said I could only buy the OEM version with a complete computer. I emailed Microsoft and asked them, since that contradicted what was on their web site. The end result was that a lawyer from Microsoft contacted the shop and assured them that I could buy an OEM version of Windows 2000 if I bought memory at the same time. If the people in the computer shops don't fully understand the license agreements, what hope does the average consumer have? I am sure there are many other people in the same situation that simply accepted what they were told, and paid hundreds of dollars more than they needed to.
Even if you do find out that you have a choice of licenses, you need to examine the license terms carefully to work out which is best for you. Some people who do buy an OEM version of Office with a new PC might be better off buying a full license that they could install on a second PC and transfer from one PC to another. However these choices are unlikely to be explained to them - they only see the difference in price.
Many spyware programs show the user an EULA which, somewhere in the fine print, describes what the program does. This allows them to claim that the user has agreed to whatever their program does. This is essentially identical to Sony's defense of their actions. They know that very few people actually read the license agreement in full. Most people simply click "I agree" on the license screen and continue. If the Sony case goes to court, it is going to be very interesting to see how the EULA is treated. Legally these contracts may be valid (I am not a lawyer), but their complexity, the way they are presented to the customer and the fact that many are very difficult or impossible to see until after the product is purchased make them ethically very dubious.
The whole software EULA system needs an overhaul. I can't think of any other case where the consumer is presented with such complex and variable contracts for off the shelf products. Companies are using them to justify very poor behavior. Consumers are expected to read and understand the contracts they are agreeing to, but they could be forgiven for feeling that they need a lawyer to help. In Part 2 I will discuss how I would like to see the licensing system for consumer software to change.
Part 2: Minimum entitlements and Software Code of Conduct.
Note: I am not a lawyer. Do not rely on my interpretations of the various software licenses presented here, they may not be correct. However any inaccuracies tend to support my argument :-)