Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely.

A few, at least.

I don't care.

Not certain.

Definitely not.

Other.

View poll. / Abstain.

[Neonivek]

Net Neutrality and internet legislation are shaping up to be a 2012 election cycle wedge issue. In general, democrats favor it and republicans are in opposition.

I am confused...

Who is for Neutrality and who is for monitoring?

[Neonivek]

Actually Eugen you would find it interesting to note that in some countries that is specifically why the EULA isn't legal and why it is questionable if they even consider the games licenses.

also yes that is my problem with Licenses. You don't get the contract until after you bought the game. It seems to be a unique situation for videogames.

You know block associations? Imagine if when you bought a house you THEN had to sign that contract... and if you didn't you were kicked out and didn't get your money back.

Better yet if I asked to buy a game in a videogame store. TECHNICALLY shouldn't I be able to get my money back? The law says that they have to refund any money if the product given isn't what was asked for. I didn't buy a game, I bought a license. (I know it wouldn't hold up in court, but it is still interesting)

(Canada has situations where Refunds are required. One of which is if you ask the store for something or for something to do something and the product doesn't)

[G-Flex]

G-Flex, that's my whole point: It's not a legal agreement. It's not a contract. It's not an anything, really. I already bought a copy of the software (and software you buy at the store is sold, not licensed).

Nope. It's licensed.

Whatever legalese they choose to put on their product after the fact is meaningless and moot.

Nope. It's not. It's something you have to agree to in order to use the software. The publisher is giving you a contract, giving you terms under which you can use it, and asking you to agree with them if you want to. That's pretty bog-standard, aside from some other details that make them a tad iffy.

I can whip out my hex editor and change the EULA to be a stream of profanity if I want. Clicking "I agree" is meaningless, as I'm not actually making an agreement with anyone.

This is fucking ridiculous. This is like saying that, if you sign a contract with someone in real life, you could just whip out a pen and write whatever you want on the paper before signing; that's not how it works and you know it. If you alter the EULA (or any contract) to your advantage before signing it, and without knowledge of the other party, you are committing fraudulent behavior. You're editing a contract that someone else has written between you, and pretending that they wrote/agreed to it. That's patently insane.

I already bought the god damn software. If it was a real contract, the clerk at fucking Gamestop would have people signing it as they bought the game, and selling games to kids would be legally impossible.

This, particularly the last part, is more of a point: That the EULA isn't necessarily available when you actually purchase it. However, I think there are laws in place stating that you can return the product if you don't agree to the license agreement. However, it's probably one of those barely-enforced things that you can never get to work in your favor.

[Blank Expression]

G-Flex, that's my whole point: It's not a legal agreement. It's not a contract. It's not an anything, really. I already bought a copy of the software (and software you buy at the store is sold, not licensed). Whatever legalese they choose to put on their product after the fact is meaningless and moot.

This is fundamentally incorrect for the simple fact that you purchased the rights to a license for the software and a copy of the media (and other related materials) to allow you to avail yourself of the license.

The EULA click-through legally validates your agreement to adhere to the license to which you purchased a right to use. Should you not agree with the EULA, any reputable software publisher (although, unfortunately, not most distributors, so you end up going up the chain) will provide a refund. There are stories of Microsoft providing refunds for unused OEM Windows licenses on new computers, for example, because a user chose to reject the EULA. That you are unwilling to read and understand a contract to which you are a party, and that you do not have the moral self-consistency to reject it and return the software should it be against the principles you hold, is only and solely your responsibility.

It really is as simple as that.

[Neonivek]

This is like saying that, if you sign a contract with someone in real life, you could just whip out a pen and write whatever you want on the paper before signing

Actually that is perfectly legal EXCEPT that the other person doesn't have to agree with it.

Mind you the EULA says they can do the exact same thing your claiming they can't.

[Blank Expression]

This is like saying that, if you sign a contract with someone in real life, you could just whip out a pen and write whatever you want on the paper before signing

Actually that is perfectly legal EXCEPT that the other person doesn't have to agree with it.

Mind you the EULA says they can do the exact same thing your claiming they can't.

With all due respect, I think you would be better served bowing out. Your participation in this discussion is fairly clearly not rooted in reality.

[G-Flex]

This is like saying that, if you sign a contract with someone in real life, you could just whip out a pen and write whatever you want on the paper before signing

Actually that is perfectly legal EXCEPT that the other person doesn't have to agree with it.

Mind you the EULA says they can do the exact same thing your claiming they can't.

What are you talking about? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say anymore.

Yes, it's legal to alter a contract someone else already agreed to, but at that point, you can't pretend they still agree to the new contract. They haven't.

An EULA does not do this. Buying software does not imply that you've agreed to an EULA you haven't seen yet; in general, court precedent has shown that, when shrink-wrap licenses (i.e. licenses you can't see until you've bought the product already) are considered legitimate, it's because you can still decline agreement at that time by returning the product.

[Neonivek]

"With all due respect, I think you would be better served bowing out. Your participation in this discussion is fairly clearly not rooted in reality."

Ok out of everything I said, my last statement was the most grounded in reality.

You ARE allowed to alter a contract before signing it, but what you are doing is exactly that... Altering it. You are making it a NEW contract

Both parties have to agree to the new contract before signing it.

The reason WHY altering the EULA from the Player's side isn't legal is because the company has no way of seeing the alterations and agreeing or disagreeing with them.

goodness Blank Expression... What crazy thing will you refute next?

What are you talking about? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say anymore

I am noticing a pattern here. I probably should appologise to Blank Expression (Sorry Blank) for not expressing myself properly.

it's because you can still decline agreement at that time by returning the product

It is assumed you can. Often you cannot. Though I assume if the store won't take it back, the source (the company, producer, or whatever) would.

Mind you due to Canadian Contract law, EULA's arn't legal apperantly. By legal I mean, legally binding.

[Gantolandon]

Not all countries have this. The only concrete example I have on hand is the Czech Republic, where I'm living now. If one person sues a supermarket for slipping on a banana and the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the next time a customer slips on a banana they start over from scratch. The old case has no bearing on the new one. I can't imagine the CZR is the only country with this type of system.

I have no idea what the pros and cons are of each system and why each country uses them, but I just thought I'd point out that this is only an issue in some places.

Actually, most countries in the western world use civil law (a descendant of the Roman law), except of UK and its former colonies (which use common law, the one that is precedent-based). That's why bringing US judicial system in a discussion involving almost any other country is pointless.

Just look at the map.

The EULA click-through legally validates your agreement to adhere to the license to which you purchased a right to use. Should you not agree with the EULA, any reputable software publisher (although, unfortunately, not most distributors, so you end up going up the chain) will provide a refund. There are stories of Microsoft providing refunds for unused OEM Windows licenses on new computers, for example, because a user chose to reject the EULA. That you are unwilling to read and understand a contract to which you are a party, and that you do not have the moral self-consistency to reject it and return the software should it be against the principles you hold, is only and solely your responsibility.

It really is as simple as that.

No, it isn't. In most EU countries, it isn't clear if the EULA is legally binding or not, as a relevant law which would solve this problem doesn't seem to exist. Also, parts which contradict the specific country's law, are invalidated automatically. In Poland, the user has the right to make a backup copy of a program to himself (and, for the movie or a book, even for his relative or close friend) and no license agreement can ban him from it.

As for the moral part - I see absolutely no reason why an agreement presented to the user after he has paid for the service should be binding.

[Neonivek]

Plus in some countries just because you have a non-legal part of a contract it doesn't mean the entire contract isn't legal.

[Gantolandon]

Plus in some countries just because you have a non-legal part of a contract it doesn't mean the entire contract isn't legal.

Actually this is what I wrote - the entire contract isn't invalidated, only the illegal part is. You still have the game, the seller still has the money, but you can make a backup copy even if the EULA tells you that you can't.

[nenjin]

That's really my issue with it: it's a backdoor method to litigate against someone (anyone) if they so choose. It's the Sword of ****ing Damoclese, for all intents and purposes, targeting resale. The fact your average user, with no intentions of piracy and/or resale, still has to click through this crap is what gets my goat. Software should not be a magical exception to the accepted practice that you don't toy with your customers, and force them to jump through legal hoops.

All the legalese on other products you buy are there to protect the creators from litigation and theft, not trying to get the consumer to sign away rights, so companies can then use that as precedent to push the envelope EVEN further.

[Neonivek]

It is worse IMO when it includes Spyware.

They really shouldn't be allowed to include spyware as not only a requirement in the EULA but really at all.

[Blank Expression]

That's really my issue with it: it's a backdoor method to litigate against someone (anyone) if they so choose. It's the Sword of ****ing Damoclese, for all intents and purposes, targeting resale.

Uh...no? This is simply false. First sale has been upheld in the United States regarding software, though I don't know about anyone else. It doesn't matter if a EULA includes that, because, as Gantolandon noted (and he seems to have a very good grasp of the topic): severability exists. If the action you take is legal, that portion of the contract is voided.

Software should not be a magical exception to the accepted practice that you don't toy with your customers, and force them to jump through legal hoops.

It's not, it's just expressly stated instead of implied. My bloody snowblower has a pack-in license explaining the patents used in the construction of the item and my rights thereof. Software isn't something special.

Look. These people are not Snidely fucking Whiplash curling the ends of his moustache and going "Bwa ha ha, we can sue these meddling kids!". It's like you have to invent demons to hate or something.



And it's spelled Damocles. Details matter when you're trying to be lit'rary.

[Neonivek]

Look. These people are not Snidely fucking Whiplash curling the ends of his moustache and going "Bwa ha ha, we can sue these meddling kids!". It's like you have to invent demons to hate or something

Most likely the EULA's are built to give them the most possible option even if they are legally dubious.

Though there have been a few Snidely Whiplashes.

Anyhow Blank Expression, I think your taking EULA's a bit loosely. The only reason why they arn't used is because they can't. Can't we blame them for trying?