I'll happily agree to sign away my first-born. First because you can't sign away what you don't have, and second because such a clause would be void where I live (Germany). Yay customer protection laws!
What's even better: EULAs in Germany are mostly useless because they can't contain any clauses that could be considered "surprising". Basically, if the EULA contradicts most users' expectations, it doesn't hold up in court.
A recent example for this was WhatsApp getting into trouble after banning users who used unofficial clients. The courts ruled that a ban was not something users would expect because other comparable services have no such clause and that while WhatsApp was allowed to detect and block the use of third-party apps, they couldn't punish the users themselves.
Me and friend (he was a contract attorney) started a company that read and published the fine print of various products (many of it was software and smartphone contracts and EULA's) and tried to warn consumers what they were signing off on.
We didn't get far because after a year, it was clear nobody cared what was in the EULA's they were signing even if it meant giving up your personal information. They were more concerned with the ability to use a new piece of hardware or software they thought was cool without thinking about the ramifications of giving out so much personal information to do so.
I believe that the average person cannot see themselves getting into any legal trouble for the EULA that they've agreed to. Lawsuits and trials are something that happens between corporations, among business people, and with criminals. It is not common to hear of the average person in trouble for violating an EULA for something that was thought to be permissible.
Although I don't agree with blindly accepting terms, the current precedent is that if you upload something somewhere, buy something, etc., you'll retain access to it as long as you are in accordance with the law. The company will notify you in the event that they are shutting down or if you'll need to take action to retain access/ownership. There are exception to this rule (does Mt. Gox qualify?), but common sense generally applies to EULAs. Should companies start cashing in on the public's willful ignorance, then people will start to panic.
So one day, I decided to make my own Terms and Conditions of Doing Business with Me, simply as a 'goof' kind of exercise.
What gave me the idea was the very common phrasing of "XXXXX reserves the right to change these Terms and Conditions at any time and without notice."
The idea was to list some expectations for 'Customer Service' and 'Notification' like correspondence, fees for missed deadlines, etc. Basically like a parody of most EULAs or T&Cs that get signed so frequently. Some were pretty ridiculous (i.e. "If you want to collect a late fee you have to do so in person, by appointment only, and accept cash") while others were more functional and somewhat practical (i.e. "Any sale of personal information undisclosed that results in additional spam/solicitations is an abuse of this relationship and subject to a fine of $XXX").
I've got a copy or two stashed away somewhere, and while I have no doubt it'd be viewed with a very negative eye in a court of law, well, it reminds me of the childish saying "Anything you can do I can do better."
My product has an EULA less than 200 words so I feel I'm not being too awful. About half of it is just there because of the requirements of the licences of all the libraries it uses. No reverse engineering - really? I don't care but Intel does and I'm using their library. Can't freely distribute? I don't care but the LGPL and MIT licences do so I have to put it in my EULA.
