EULAs are not intended to be properly read. Every $BIGNAME has a lengthy EULA, to the point where it's just a click-through. No reasonable person can be expected to read every tech EULA, let alone understand all its provisions.
Even then, whenever EULAs get updated, rare is the company that highlights the change - most expect you to reread and figure out the difference for yourself. You also have no choice but to agree or lose your existing body of work - it's a unilateral license change, not a mutual change of contract terms.
The whole "but you voluntarily agreed to their terms!" concept is a canard which disguises how obfuscatory and misdirectional the EULA process is. It's the difference between "consent" and "informed consent", which is significant.
example: my favourite EULA to date was one in a Windows OS installer, which weighed in at 3000 words... which you could only read in a box four lines high.
Still, it doesn't beat the 'voluntary' license where you can't read the license until you unseal the box, but unsealing the box indicates you agree with the license.
As far as I know, those unwrapping-consent EULAs are not legal (at least in Europe).
And I seem to remember that some court in some county decided that EULAs in general are not legally binding (to consumers at least) any more since no one can be reasonably expected to read them.
Even then, whenever EULAs get updated, rare is the company that highlights the change - most expect you to reread and figure out the difference for yourself. You also have no choice but to agree or lose your existing body of work - it's a unilateral license change, not a mutual change of contract terms.
The whole "but you voluntarily agreed to their terms!" concept is a canard which disguises how obfuscatory and misdirectional the EULA process is. It's the difference between "consent" and "informed consent", which is significant.