DRMs - This is how it should be done!


Recommended Posts

I have not asked for anything more than what we used to get 5 years ago from games.

Times changed, you gotta roll with the punches. You can't use "the good ol' days" as a viable precedent to support your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ignorance of the facts of law and self-attribution of rights do nothing but highlight your inexcusable sense of entitlement and being persecuted. Perhaps you'd need to be bitten in your derri?re to force a change from such a cavalier attitude :rolleyes:

The law isn't the be all and end all that the courts would love us to believe. As much as I would argue the legal points and finer points of law it isn't helpful in all cases...

The problem we have, and will continue to have for the near future, is the wrestling between copyright law and society. There are very few people who wouldn't argue that the system isn't highly flawed and needs to be reworked...

The point being made, that DRM makes life hard for the paying customer, is a valid one. The point the customer should have a legal right to modify the game they purchased to be on par with an illegal copy (i.e. no DRM) is also a valid one. The courts are still out on how legal EULAs are to begin with. As a result, you can't scream that he is only buying a license granted by the EULA. The EULA might not be valid at all... I have not yet had to argue against (or for) an EULA in a court, but I see the case for one to be very hard. I'm not sure how you can bind someone to a contract they were not allowed to read prior to purchase nor can they be made whole, in the legal definition, if they do no accept it.

But the important shift in our society has been in regards to mediums. When copyright law was crafted it was very easy to distinguish a product from a work of art. Copyright law has always been designed to protect works of art. It was easy to know the difference between a book and the story. As a result, it would be completely legal for the purchaser of a book (a product) to do whatever he pleases with that product, except reproduce the story (the art). Meaning he could sell it, lend it, burn it, eat it, paint his walls with it, etc. The publisher couldn't enforce a "license" put on the first page saying he could only read the book after 5PM or he couldn't sell it. Just as much as the same consumer could do anything he wanted with a dvd (the product) except reproduce the movie (the art)...

Publishers and businesses in general have been working for a long time to expand the definition of art and to restrict the definition of a product so they can extort all kinds of new restrictions on consumers. To consumers this looks like a usurpation of their rights and it is. Until the law aligns closer to what society expects (control over the property and not the art) then we'll continue to see these problems.

Just because the law is written one way makes little difference. The laws have to align with society for them to have any teeth among the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws :rolleyes: If we were to follow laws blindly, we would still have slaves, "woman's place is in the kitchen" and all that fun stuff. Anyone who follows rules and laws blindly is but a mere sheep.

Times changed, you gotta roll with the punches. You can't use "the good ol' days" as a viable precedent to support your point of view.

Of course I can, I do it all the time. Nor do I purchase the endless crap they throw at me. Nor do the majority of PC gamers - that is why they always look for silly reasons why their games don't sell as well on the consoles. Since when is demanding excellence and quality so far fetched? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you can bind someone to a contract they were not allowed to read prior to purchase nor can they be made whole, in the legal definition, if they do no accept it.

I suppose that it depends on how a particular product was purchased. If you buy a game in a shop, come home and install it (accepting EULA, et al) then you are bound to at least 2 contracts: retailer's purchase/return policy (superseded by Sale of Goods Act in UK) and developer's/publisher's EULA. Sometimes EULA is printed in a manual tucked inside the case, sometimes it is not. If, when you read in the EULA, you're not happy then don't accept it and return the goods to said shop for a refund. Particulars of this are usually governed by a country's consumer protection legislation.

If one buys a product online, one may have had to agree to EULA/Tc&Cs prior to purchase, since they're easy to show on the screen.

The laws have to align with society for them to have any teeth among the people.

Society doesn't make the law -- legislative bodies and politicians do. Judges are there to interpret the law and make judgements based on the law. Laws are enforced regardless of what people think. Justice cannot be blind and objective if it ponders to society.

Since when is demanding excellence and quality so far fetched?

Since when do you have a right to demand anything when it comes to content that you're not an owner of? You get what you get. If you don't like then don't buy it. Be an adult and speak with your wallet ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo you fail at debate, but you get an A+ for sticking to your guns. Quick example, there was a never a law that insisted everyone owned a slave, it simply was not illegal to own one. You could actively protest the act of slavery by simply refusing to own a slave (if you could afford one). There is no law that says you have to buy a game you don't like or support DRM you don't believe in, but there is a law that says you are not entitled to circumvent it just because you don't agree with it. You should really stick behind your supposed moral code and not play the game, not rationalize it's theft by saying it doesn't pass your personal standards of excelence. And please don't insult victims of slavery or suffrage to gamers who don't like online activation.

You do not own the contents of any software disk, only a right to use it. I agree you should be able to use it in "almost" any way you see fit, but as long as those with entitlement issues think that if something doesn't pass their own personal mark of excellence that they are free to steal from the developers and publishers, we will keep getting more DRM schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when do you have a right to demand anything when it comes to content that you're not an owner of? You get what you get. If you don't like then don't buy it. Be an adult and speak with your wallet ;)

That is indeed exactly what I do. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that it depends on how a particular product was purchased. If you buy a game in a shop, come home and install it (accepting EULA, et al) then you are bound to at least 2 contracts: retailer's purchase/return policy (superseded by Sale of Goods Act in UK) and developer's/publisher's EULA. Sometimes EULA is printed in a manual tucked inside the case, sometimes it is not. If, when you read in the EULA, you're not happy then don't accept it and return the goods to said shop for a refund. Particulars of this are usually governed by a country's consumer protection legislation.

I have yet to see a retail store accept returns of an opened game for any reason (except an exchange for the same game). I have likewise never seen a game give you its EULA text up front before you open the box.

Mind you I can only speak of retail practices in the US and Canada since these are the only two countries I regularly visit and/or reside in.

If one buys a product online, one may have had to agree to EULA/Tc&Cs prior to purchase, since they're easy to show on the screen.

The same story goes for online purchases. I can't even remember if Steam shows the EULA before you purchase the item or not...

Society doesn't make the law -- legislative bodies and politicians do. Judges are there to interpret the law and make judgements based on the law. Laws are enforced regardless of what people think. Justice cannot be blind and objective if it ponders to society.

I think you are sadly mistaken and living in a fantasy. Governments get their consent to govern from the people and their laws carry no weight unless they are believed by those same people to be just and fair...

A great historical example would be the US Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision in 1857. The courts ruling was so far out of touch with societal norms that it is argued to have been a major catalyst to the civil war and reduced the authority of the court for decades after.

The laws, and the court decisions that go with them, have to align with society or they won't hold any teeth or, at the worst, they can throw the nation into a civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are sadly mistaken and living in a fantasy. Governments get their consent to govern from the people and their laws carry no weight unless they are believed by those same people to be just and fair...

However, governments do not require people's consent to pass legislations unless said legislation is so drastic that a referendum is deemed necessary. In which case, people do get a say by voting. Otherwise, people's representatives are bicameral/unicameral parliamentary houses, which determine whether laws are just and fair on people's behalf. Therefore, I am not living in a fantasy, but an unfortunate reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few thoughts on the subject.

EULAs are definitely a grey area and so far have never been enforced in court in their entirety. Most are shot down completely because the customer has no access to the text of a EULA until after the product is purchased and opened, and then he is stuck with it due to draconian return policies. Only a few clauses in a few EULAs have ever been upheld by the courts.

I've been gaming on the pc for almost 30 years now and I've seen every form of copy protection there is. Every one of them has been cracked. This is the rule, not the exception.

The exception to the rule is online gaming, and even then most can be played online if you avoid legit servers. While online gaming is certainly popular, not all gamers care to play online, so not being able to do so will not deter piracy in the slightest.

Paper based copy protection, like code wheels or having to look up a word in the manual are a joke, though I did find them rather enjoyable to use. Using a code wheel was kind of like having a secret decoder ring to me.

Anyone with grade school art skills and a little patience can easily make his own copy of any code wheel. Manuals were easily copied on any photocopier. We didn't have the internet and all in one printers back then.

Sins of a Solar Empire updates and their cracks are easily found on various torrent sites, regardless of what anyone might claim. Someone is a poor pirate if he can't use a search box on the most popular torrent site in the world.

Using cracked files with your legit game is not piracy and it's not altering the game. It's simply replacing a few files for your personal convenience and to protect your expensive game discs. It can also prevent these various protection schemes from running and possibly causing problems with other software or Windows itself.

Cracks are not illegal. There has never been a crack site hit with a DMCA takedown notice or shut down over cracks. If it were illegal, you could bet your balls Microsoft would be all over the sites that host cracks for their games.

Steam is not the "be all end all" of pc game distribution as some would have people believe. Personally I hate Steam and similar services. I want a physical disc in my hands. I don't want to be forced to depend on my internet connection and Valve's servers all working flawlessly just so I can download, unpack, install and authenticate my games.

Digital content distribution has a long way to go before it can truly rival physical media in 2 areas. Availability and price. Last month I had a discussion with someone on the subject. He was all for digital distribution, saying there was a great selection and cheap prices. 10 minutes of comparison searching proved him sadly wrong.

I compared Steam, Playstation Network*, Xbox Live, Walmart, Best Buy and GoGamer.com, looking for 4 popular titles for PC, 360 and PS3:

Fallout 3 GOTY

Borderlands

Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2

Left 4 Dead 2

I won't bother copy/pasting my full results here as it's been a month and prices and availability have most likely changed.

In nearly every case, buying the physical boxed game for PC was cheaper versus the console versions, and none are available via digital distribution on XBL or PSN. Only Steam has them, and of course they are PC only. All are widely available on physical media at any online or brick & mortar retailer.

*I couldn't browse PSN as Sony is run by a bunch of morons. Apparently you have to have a PS2 or PS3 plus an account just to browse their catalog, so I couldn't do a proper comparison with them.

The point is you have a much larger selection, and cheaper prices, going with physical media for any platform versus digital distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo you fail at debate, but you get an A+ for sticking to your guns. Quick example, there was a never a law that insisted everyone owned a slave, it simply was not illegal to own one. You could actively protest the act of slavery by simply refusing to own a slave (if you could afford one). There is no law that says you have to buy a game you don't like or support DRM you don't believe in, but there is a law that says you are not entitled to circumvent it just because you don't agree with it. You should really stick behind your supposed moral code and not play the game, not rationalize it's theft by saying it doesn't pass your personal standards of excelence. And please don't insult victims of slavery or suffrage to gamers who don't like online activation.

You do not own the contents of any software disk, only a right to use it. I agree you should be able to use it in "almost" any way you see fit, but as long as those with entitlement issues think that if something doesn't pass their own personal mark of excellence that they are free to steal from the developers and publishers, we will keep getting more DRM schemes.

I have to be honest here, there have been very few games that I have pirated, enjoyed and not purchased. You see, these days there are almost no demos for games anymore, and as a rule, I have to test the quality of a game before I buy it, especially with the quick console ports that are coming out these days. So usually what happens is try, see how dumb it is, shift-delete. The games I try and like, I buy. The ones that I have not bought yet are usually games that are lacking support and have bugs that I do not wish to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, I am not living in a fantasy, but an unfortunate reality.

I'm not sure how unfortunate it really is. This thread alone proves most people don't have a basic understanding of this issue, let alone more complex issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, much better to roll over and give up any personal liberties over some imaginary rights of an overweight and overpaid industry. All these so called laws in most countries are strictly due to political lobbying. :rolleyes:

Just remember, while you cry on forums how piracy is immoral (because now, all of a sudden installing my copy of a game on all my PCs at home is illegal) and bla bla bla, my conscience is clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how unfortunate it really is. This thread alone proves most people don't have a basic understanding of this issue, let alone more complex issues.

That comment from me was made from a purely personal perspective. It may well be perfectly fine for others or maybe I'm just weird :laugh:

Yes, much better to roll over and give up any personal liberties over some imaginary rights of an overweight and overpaid industry. All these so called laws in most countries are strictly due to political lobbying. :rolleyes:

The truth overrides your subjective beliefs yet again. Those "imaginary" rights are rights given to content creators by statutes of law in most democratic countries across the world. If you have an issue with those rights then my suggestion would be to take it up with an appropriate political representative. Also, who are you to say that the industry is overweight and overpaid? Thousands of jobs were cut in that sector during the last calendar and studios are being closed/consolidated almost on a monthly basis. As for the laws being due only to lobbying -- if you're not happy with the government in your country then put yourself forward as a candidate, draw up policies and stand for election. Let's see how many people vote for you :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is any of what you said override what I said? :rolleyes:

As usual with such businesses, the overweight is at the management level, not the lowest level, that unfortunately lost their jobs. They only lost their jobs because because their bosses didn't want to earn less. As usual, the simple worker gets it worse.

But this doesn't affect anything I said. I have no grudge against these guys.

But I think we're done here. "Given to content creators by statutes of law" is to you the most important thing. A sheep. Discussion is futile.

As I said, the country I live in allows me much broader freedom with software than "most democratic countries across the world". Fortunately, the political lobbying of the entertainment companies here has not reached the government for now (nor will they in the foreseeable future).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how some people can be perfectly fine with the idea that various products aren't really owned by you when you buy them and that the IP holder can issue demands on what you can and can't do with the products you bought.

This would be the same as saying the contractor who built your house telling you that you can't add a roof over the porch unless he does the work.

Or the company that built your car telling you that you aren't allowed to change the tires unless you go to their dealership.

Or a music label telling DJs they can't use their cds in the clubs.

The fact is you bought it, so it's yours to do with as you please, as long as you aren't making copies beyond personal use.

People don't seem to realize that company policy is NOT law, therefore the IP holder really can't make demands on the customers beyond reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is any of what you said override what I said? :rolleyes:

But I think we're done here. "Given to content creators by statutes of law" is to you the most important thing. A sheep. Discussion is futile.

What I said is the truth according to law. What you said is a subjective point of view driven by hatred of "oversized and overpaid" industry. "Given to content creators by statutes of law" is not about what is important to me, but what is right according to law. In as much as you enjoy certain freedoms given to you by laws in your country, I have to abide by those in my locale. We're both sheep, but you have a different field to roam in.

I don't understand how some people can be perfectly fine with the idea that various products aren't really owned by you when you buy them and that the IP holder can issue demands on what you can and can't do with the products you bought.

This would be the same as saying the contractor who built your house telling you that you can't add a roof over the porch unless he does the work.

Or the company that built your car telling you that you aren't allowed to change the tires unless you go to their dealership.

Or a music label telling DJs they can't use their cds in the clubs.

The fact is you bought it, so it's yours to do with as you please, as long as you aren't making copies beyond personal use.

People don't seem to realize that company policy is NOT law, therefore the IP holder really can't make demands on the customers beyond reason.

What I don't understand is how people come to a conclusion that simply because people purchase the media on which a game is stored then they assume that they automatically get ownership rights over the content of that media. It just doesn't work that way. What you do own is the physical media, the carbon pancake, if you will and and accompanying materials (manual, case, etc). The access to the content and thus the content itself is governed by a completely different license(s), one of which is usually an EULA. What you're paying for is the physical media (and accompanying materials) and a license to use content as described in said license.

Further, your metaphorical comparisons are also invalid, because they do not depict the situation accurately enough. Each of the mentioned scenarios can be applicable if contractual clauses reflected those included in EULA, et al. If a contract to build your house included a clause that any extensions must be built by the original builder and you sign that contract (equivalent to agreeing to an EULA) then you are deemed to have accepted terms and conditions of that contract are legally enforceable. Likewise, a car company can (and some already may) invent proprietary tyre mechanism, so to change said tires you'd have to go to their garage. While a music label can't influence DJs directly, it can revoke a public broadcasting license granted to a club, in which case any performance of musical works covered under such license would be an offence and said club would be liable for legal proceedings to be initiated against it. One may argue that such terms are unfair, but pursuing that would require going down the legal route.

Your "fact", as you so eloquently put it, isn't a fact at all. At the very least, the validity of said "fact" depends on legislation in a country of reference. In most democratic countries around the world you can't do everything that you please with purchased items. As for the company policy not being the law, you are right. However, if the law deems said terms and conditions fair then one has but a moral leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how people come to a conclusion that simply because people purchase the media on which a game is stored then they assume that they automatically get ownership rights over the content of that media. It just doesn't work that way. What you do own is the physical media, the carbon pancake, if you will and and accompanying materials (manual, case, etc). The access to the content and thus the content itself is governed by a completely different license(s), one of which is usually an EULA. What you're paying for is the physical media (and accompanying materials) and a license to use content as described in said license.

You are technically correct as far as software license agreements are concerned. However, as I said before, no EULA has ever been enforced in full by any court. Company policy is NOT law, therefore a EULA can NOT be declared as such.

I'll repeat myself once again. The legal issue of EULAs is a grey area for the courts for a few reasons:

1. There is no law, at least in America, that says a company's policies are enforceable by law. This means no company can make legal demands on the consumer regarding their products beyond piracy issues.

2. Most of the time, the customer has no access to said EULA until after he has bought a product, taken it home and opened it. In the case of media, this means you are now stuck with the product, with no advanced knowledge of any license agreements.

3. While the courts recognize the right of a company to protect itself and it's intellectual property, the courts also recognize consumer rights (which are well established), and the 2 sides of that coin don't always work well together.

Further, your metaphorical comparisons are also invalid, because they do not depict the situation accurately enough. Each of the mentioned scenarios can be applicable if contractual clauses reflected those included in EULA, et al. If a contract to build your house included a clause that any extensions must be built by the original builder and you sign that contract (equivalent to agreeing to an EULA) then you are deemed to have accepted terms and conditions of that contract are legally enforceable.

If you hire a contractor to build a house or do any other work that means he works for you, so he does what you tell him to do. He can't make demands on you, other than his due payment.

The only way a contractor could get away with such a demand is if the person who hired him is stupid enough to allow it.

Likewise, a car company can (and some already may) invent proprietary tyre mechanism, so to change said tires you'd have to go to their garage.

This has never happened, and it's highly unlikely that it ever will. People would simply avoid the vehicles with this proprietary design, for several reasons, and it would go away in no time, especially if no other manufacturer did it.

While a music label can't influence DJs directly, it can revoke a public broadcasting license granted to a club, in which case any performance of musical works covered under such license would be an offence and said club would be liable for legal proceedings to be initiated against it. One may argue that such terms are unfair, but pursuing that would require going down the legal route.

It would be absolute suicide to even try to put a stop to music in clubs or other venues. Music labels don't issue licenses to clubs. Clubs hire a DJ and that DJ plays what he or the people want.

Playing a cd in a club is not broadcasting. Radio is broadcasting, and radio stations do pay a fee to the music labels. Big difference.

While there's no doubt the music industry is run by morons who like to screw their customers and the artists, there's no way they would ever destroy other entire industries just to get their way.

Your "fact", as you so eloquently put it, isn't a fact at all. At the very least, the validity of said "fact" depends on legislation in a country of reference. In most democratic countries around the world you can't do everything that you please with purchased items. As for the company policy not being the law, you are right. However, if the law deems said terms and conditions fair then one has but a moral leg to stand on.

Since you spelled tire with a "y" I can only assume you are in the UK. I've never been there, so I have no idea how things are done there. Here in America, we do whatever we want with the products we buy, EULAs be damned.

I'll say it again, no court has ever enforced an entire EULA. No court can even decide if EULAs are legal to begin with, which is exactly why they aren't enforced beyond the piracy stuff. It really is a simple issue from the consumer standpoint.

Let me ask a simple question, and this one is for everyone: If you bought a car and the salesman gave you a EULA that says you can only drive your car on Tuesdays,

would you agree to such a ridiculous demand?

No, of course you wouldn't. You would do one of 2 things:

1. Go to another company that doesn't impose such crap.

2. Tell the salesman where he can put the EULA and drive your new car every day anyway.

So why roll over to the sometimes ridiculous demands of a software company's EULA?

Edited by SyntaxError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be absolute suicide to even try to put a stop to music in clubs or other venues. Music labels don't issue licenses to clubs. Clubs hire a DJ and that DJ plays what he or the people want.

Playing a cd in a club is not broadcasting. Radio is broadcasting, and radio stations do pay a fee to the music labels. Big difference.

Not entirely true.

In the UK in order to play music in clubs they have to pay royalties to the PRS, so this although covertly, is the licence clubs need to pay for.

Playing a CD in a club or public area that you have not bought a licence for is considered illegal and you can be fined or taken to court.

While there's no doubt the music industry is run by morons who like to screw their customers and the artists, there's no way they would ever destroy other entire industries just to get their way.

Wouldn't be so sure about that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you hire a contractor to build a house or do any other work that means he works for you, so he does what you tell him to do. He can't make demands on you, other than his due payment.

The only way a contractor could get away with such a demand is if the person who hired him is stupid enough to allow it.

A process of hiring must, or at the very least should, include signing a statement of work that describes what work needs to be done and obligations of both parties. That contract becomes a legal document, terms of which are enforceable in a court of law.

Since you spelled tire with a "y" I can only assume you are in the UK. I've never been there, so I have no idea how things are done there. Here in America, we do whatever we want with the products we buy, EULAs be damned.

I'll say it again, no court has ever enforced an entire EULA. No court can even decide if EULAs are legal to begin with, which is exactly why they aren't enforced beyond the piracy stuff. It really is a simple issue from the consumer standpoint.

EULAs are dual-action contracts. Their aim, on one side, to state what you should and should not do with a product. On the other hand, it is to limit liability should anything go wrong with a product while you're using it. Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., et al. has enforced said liability limitations stated in the EULA.

Let me ask a simple question, and this one is for everyone: If you bought a car and the salesman gave you a EULA that says you can only drive your car on Tuesdays,

would you agree to such a ridiculous demand?

No, of course you wouldn't. You would do one of 2 things:

1. Go to another company that doesn't impose such crap.

2. Tell the salesman where he can put the EULA and drive your new car every day anyway.

So why roll over to the sometimes ridiculous demands of a software company's EULA?

Your question is wrong. I wouldn't buy a car unless I have reviewed terms and conditions prior to purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A process of hiring must, or at the very least should, include signing a statement of work that describes what work needs to be done and obligations of both parties. That contract becomes a legal document, terms of which are enforceable in a court of law.

Which is exactly why you would have to be a moron to agree to the situation I described.

EULAs are dual-action contracts. Their aim, on one side, to state what you should and should not do with a product. On the other hand, it is to limit liability should anything go wrong with a product while you're using it. Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., et al. has enforced said liability limitations stated in the EULA.

Software EULAs are not legally contracts for the simple fact that any contract must be agreed upon by both parties before the exchange of goods. Since the customer has no advanced knowledge of the terms of the EULA until after the purchase is made and taken home, the EULA can not be legally binding beyond piracy issues. This has been ruled on in court several times. And no I can't name a specific case, as I don't follow such things.

The case you mentioned really doesn't apply to this argument because Mortenson dealt with an authorized dealer (Softworks Data Systems, Inc) of Timberline products, and as such they could have easily provided a full copy of Timberline's policy, which they failed to do. On appeal, the case was thrown out of court with neither side gaining any ground other than the court stating Timberline's policy was legal and Mortenson's claims were baseless. The case set no precedence at all.

And yes, I did read the summary judgment in full, boring though it was.

When you buy software for personal use, you aren't dealing with a representative of the developer, and you aren't provided with a copy of the EULA before you make your purchase, even if you ask for it. Stores simply don't have that information. Therefore, the EULA is not a legally enforceable contract in a personal software purchase.

The issue doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

I wouldn't buy a car unless I have reviewed terms and conditions prior to purchase.

Not if you didn't know about the EULA existed in advance.

At any rate, you can roll over and play good dog for the software companies or whoever all you want.

Most of us simply won't do it and that will never change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly why you would have to be a moron to agree to the situation I described.

Being a moron doesn't preclude one from agreeing to said situation.

Software EULAs are not legally contracts for the simple fact that any contract must be agreed upon by both parties before the exchange of goods. Since the customer has no advanced knowledge of the terms of the EULA until after the purchase is made and taken home, the EULA can not be legally binding beyond piracy issues. This has been ruled on in court several times. And no I can't name a specific case, as I don't follow such things.

I must disagree. E-SIGN, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 that has been penned by the US Government, states that clicking "Accept" is as binding as a signature. There also seems to be a fair amount of confusion about which contracts are agreed, etc. When you buy a game from a retail/web shop, you hand over the money and a shop gives/sends you a game (or provides a link to download). That's a contract because you can review your country's sale of goods legislation, shop's terms of sale/refunds prior to making a purchase and consumer protection legislation. When you install said game, you're most likely presented with EULA, which is legally binding if you agree to it (this, of course, depends on laws in your locale). Copyright infringement (piracy) is defined in it as well. If you accept, the install proceeds and you're able to play the game. That's another form of exchange: you agree to EULA and in exchange the installer allows you to install said game on your computer. EULA is in no way linked to you paying money to the shop where you made a purchase. A shop sold you the disc(s), whatever packaging materials disc(s) came in, printed materials inside said packaging, but they didn't sell you what's on the disc(s). They simply can't do that because they have no rights over the content on disc(s). Therefore, EULA doesn't come into the contract that you formed with the shop. In the shop, you're not handing over dollars/pounds/euros for what you're agreeing to in EULA.

Also, last time I looked at computer game case, there was a statement along the lines of "Acceptance of End User License Agreement required". What's stopping you enquiring with developer/publisher about what it is prior to purchase? Also, if you did not make efforts to obtain EULA prior to purchase and you're having difficulties returning a game because you don't agree to EULA then perhaps it'd be wise to take this up with your country's consumer watchdog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our current system of patent laws is a mess. It wasn't built for this generation, and it shows. People are patenting things that were never meant to be ?owned?. Gene sequences, data, ideas! The whole system has to be rewritten from scratch.

I would venture to say that patent law will become one of the most challenging issues facing our society within the next century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.