See they're not actually breaking the games, that's the problem. They're in a way actually re-enforcing current laws with a game. Using the NES, back then you bought the plastic, board, chips, paper, stickers, etc and in all of that was 1 copy of a game. You bought the parts and the LICENSE to run one copy of it. With the laws then and now, if you can make a backup you can use it, but not use it and the original at the same time as that's two licenses. So when you forfeit your game to another party, that license is null. So all the companies are doing is selling someone another license and at a cheaper rate than buying a new disc. So unfortunately they're not breaking the law, they're just being jerks about backing it up for once to get paid more.
Actually from what you are saying.. I buy a licensed game at retail price. I am only sold a license to play the game and I do not own it. The disc, case, and manual are just physical materials, not the game. I can legally back up my ability to play the game. I do so. Now I sell the physical materials. I cannot sell the license to play the game, since I don't own the rights. Therefore I retain the rights to my first purchased license. Now the person who purchased the physical disk from me is free to pay $10 for a license to play the software. Basically for a one time purchase of $60 that disk can be passed around to new people that can pay $10 to enjoy the game.
They can't have it both ways. Either they license the ability to play digital content to us and we don't own the rights to anything but an empty physical disk..... or they are selling us a physical game, one or the other.
I really think it should be a requirement by law that they state in large bold letters on the front of games that you are purchasing a license to play the game, you are not actually purchasing anything to own. Especially since you purchase these games from a third party retailer. You should really have to sign a contract right there at the register. How can I purchase something in a retail setting, then after they have my money, I open up a device I purchased and it tells me I am now entering into a license agreement. What.. No I'm not. I just put cash down at a retail store that sells physical goods. How can this be legal? Can Milton Bradley put a license agreement on the instruction manual that comes inside a board game, that you can only read once you have already payed for the game? Can this license state that if I purchased the game used I must mail MB $10 if I am to be legally allowed to place the pieces on the board and begin moving them around in the fashion MB has copy written?
Sorry this license issue has just annoyed me for a long time.
It's annoying to me because the laws around these issues don't line up anywhere close with my own logic and morals.
To me selling someone something and then waving your magic wand and taking it away is wrong.
To me attempting to trick people into thinking they are getting something other than what you are selling is wrong.
To me forging agreement and understanding in deals with others is wrong.
To the law, as long as anything digital is involved those things seem to be sacrosanct and companies' right to do them is to be protected at all costs.
Edit: Really bugs me because this is my industry and from where I stand they are turning what I always saw as a noble, hard working and fast moving industry that I wanted to be a part of into one full of scammers and racketeers that I don't want anything to do with. Software is turning from a product into a tool in an extortion scheme.
I have yet to buy a Wii, 360, or PS3 and don't see myself buying the next generation either, especially if it's all digital. I want a physical game, damn it. I want artwork, maps, etc. I've come to the realization that the games I grew up and fell in love with video games with aren't being made anymore, or rarely are. Honestly, the only fairly new console I've bought games for recently is the PSP. There have been a lot of good retro titles like Dracula X Chronicles, Ys I&II Complete, Ys: Oath In Felghana, Ys VI, Final Fantasy IV Complete and Megaman Powered Up that I've really enjoyed. Otherwise, the landscape is bleak for me.
Yes that's just what I'm saying. When it comes to 360 and PS3 games this generation unlike the Wii when you fire up the system you agree to an EULA, there's also a secondary and equally large one for the online end of it and what you agree into by downloading those things too. When you go to the store and buy one of your favored 360 games you're buying: The disc, the box, the manual, cover art, other papers and the metal for the staples as far as the physical aspect goes. You can do as you wish with that, but you also covertly if you don't read and remember you EULA that you're allowed a license to run what on that physical stuff tied to just your account. I don't recall if they ban transferability but I doubt it or Gamestop would be sued into the stone age for it.
Now in this next generation coming in 2014, the rules are the same except one thing. Now with the hardware playing basically 'net nanny' on your ass you as the license holder are now not allowed to transfer the license directly. To sell the game used, you basically are giving the next owner all that physical stuff I said, but the game itself will only work as a gimp in some form (not likely to not work at all.) Probably in light of what XBL and PSN+ does, the game will work for a defined amount of time, once it expires it will ask you if you're up for 'buying a license to continue playing' and from there you can drop the $10 or whatever and then it just works like a new game out of the box. The thing is, they CAN and they WILL have it that way, it's not illegal, and it does follow the letter of the law as far as licenses on software go. It blows, but it's legal. So you can either let Gamestop take it in the butt on their gouging trade-in-out prices and then buy it cheap and then get the license, or just quit buying used or current gen games entirely. And then once the national infrastructure is there, the next gen system to hit then, if they can manage it, it will be digital entirely.
I think it's outrageous that this is coming. If everything goes digital, when you buy a game, you're not buying the game. You own nothing. All you're doing is leasing some data. It can be taken away from you, lost, corrupted, hacked, whatever and you have zero control over it. That's BS and I'll never participate in that, just like I've never done the whole I-Tunes thing. I buy CDs so I can have the physical CD, case, artwork, etc. so I have something tangible that I own, can take anywhere I want and do anything I want with it, and don't have to worry about losing my whole music collection because a hard drive fails. I understand trying to fight piracy but the rights of the consumer have been thrown out the window by corporations in the name of profit.
. You own nothing. All you're doing is leasing some data. It can be taken away from you, lost, corrupted, hacked, whatever and you have zero control over it.
Guys... this is just NOT true. That is not the way EULAs typically work. I don't think I've ever seen an EULA that gives the distributor the ability to take back what you've paid for, unless you've clearly paid for a time-limited subscription.
Just like and EULA says what you are allowed to do with the software (in terms of copying and distribution on your end), it also binds the provider to hold up their end of the bargain.
I'm guessing most of you guys never actually BUY commercial software on your PCs, so you aren't very familiar with how the rest of the software market already works and has worked for quite some time.
Not that I read eulas, but commercial software on PCs that depend on DRM servers being up will definately some sort of language to allow them to end support or maintenance of their DRM server and brick your software. I had to have a big fight with installshield to get some of my old software "authorized" to install and the guy was quite clear he didn't have to "authorize" me if he didn't want to and he wasn't going to do it again so next time I should buy their new software (which wouldn't even work with vb6 anymore, the only thing I needed that crap for).
Course, he didn't even have to be there, if they had gone under, the software would be gone for sure.
I'm not sure how it isn't obvious, but if your software needs to connect to a remote server to work, it only works while the remote server is there.
Steam, specifically, has a master-unlock if they were to ever go under. I expect, as this sort of software arrangement becomes more common, that provisions for similar unlocks would be the rule, rather than the exception.
I think the new playstation idea of mandating online for game verification is pretty misguided (steam only requires a one-time "check out" from your game library, for instance), but current console software definitely doesn't require that for download-only content, and I don't expect that "feature" to persist or expand to other systems, since even in our connected world plenty of people still lack persistent online access.
If the industry keeps moving in the current direction, I would be surprised if there wasn't eventually a requirement for unlocking software when they take validation servers offline or cease support in response to those concerns. If nothing else, business will gravitate toward the groups who already offer that assurance and it will force the hand of those who don't.
But again, this stuff is a luxury item and is in no way a necessity, so if you don't agree with what they're doing, just don't give them your business. Nobody needs what any of these guys are selling and it is all purchased by choice.
Steam, specifically, has a master-unlock if they were to ever go under. I expect, as this sort of software arrangement becomes more common, that provisions for similar unlocks would be the rule, rather than the exception.
I think the new playstation idea of mandating online for game verification is pretty misguided (steam only requires a one-time "check out" from your game library, for instance), but current console software definitely doesn't require that for download-only content, and I don't expect that "feature" to persist or expand to other systems, since even in our connected world plenty of people still lack persistent online access.
If the industry keeps moving in the current direction, I would be surprised if there wasn't eventually a requirement for unlocking software when they take validation servers offline or cease support in response to those concerns. If nothing else, business will gravitate toward the groups who already offer that assurance and it will force the hand of those who don't.
But again, this stuff is a luxury item and is in no way a necessity, so if you don't agree with what they're doing, just don't give them your business. Nobody needs what any of these guys are selling and it is all purchased by choice.
Yeah, thats kinda what this thread is about
The only real problem I have is that they don't have to be honest about what they are selling. How am I supposed to know that when I buy install shield that I've agreed to some convoluted terms that let them take my software away? They put everything they can in their agreement, In install shield's case, they put their eula up on the web and the ok box apparently says I agree to whatever is up there. they don't have to stick to what they are actually legally allowed to do in those agreements, they are allowed to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, so you would need a lawyer to figure out which parts are actually important and binding when you clicked the ok box.
But they DO have to tell you what you're agreeing to. You are the one that clicks the box that says "OK, I agree"...
And yes, they do have to stick to what is legally allowed and legally binding when they write their EULA.
Also, you are probably picking a bad example to make your case with, since that sort of software isn't typically considered a one-and-done purchase, anyway.
There is a plethora of enterprise software like that where you know up front that you are buying a support subscription for x-number of years.
Almost all professional software works this way, and if it didn't, the upfront costs would have to be ludicrous to support development of newer versions (for engineering software, think something like $100k per seat instead of $10k per seat, for instance).
Permanent licenses for business software are expensive, and justifiably so.
But they DO have to tell you what you're agreeing to. You are the one that clicks the box that says "OK, I agree"...
And yes, they do have to stick to what is legally allowed and legally binding when they write their EULA.
Also, you are probably picking a bad example to make your case with, since that sort of software isn't typically considered a one-and-done purchase, anyway.
There is a plethora of enterprise software like that where you know up front that you are buying a support subscription for x-number of years.
Almost all professional software works this way, and if it didn't, the upfront costs would have to be ludicrous to support development of newer versions (for engineering software, think something like $100k per seat instead of $10k per seat, for instance).
Permanent licenses for business software are expensive, and justifiably so.
Yes install shield was a done and done purchase, I bought it in the box at staples / futureshop, It's not a subscription model.
They have to "tell" you, but they don't have to make it clear. Thats the problem. EULA's have become an artform of taking as many rights away from the user as possible without them catching on.
Yes, the agreement said it was "subject to updates" (again, not that I actually read it until the guy pulled it on me, because whats the point, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what it actually means anyway) but does that mean they can swap the agreement out for one that says I will give them 10 grand a year for the next 20 years?
probably not, but what exactly does it mean? I have no idea.
Edit: Does it mean they have the right to change the terms without notifying me to say if I don't use their uninstall properly I forfeit my rights to use the software I bought? I'm not actually sure, but thats what the guy claimed it meant.
I'm pretty sure they don't have the right to change the terms after you have agreed to them, without your consent.
As for your other arguments, I would agree that EULAs contain too much legalese, if there is any expectation that typical consumers should be able to interpret them, but they are not that really that hard to understand if you actually read them. Also, if you buy boxed software and then find that the EULA is disagreeable, you are allowed to get a refund, at least that is how it works in the USA.
I'm pretty sure they don't have the right to change the terms after you have agreed to them, without your consent.
As for your other arguments, I would agree that EULAs contain too much legalese, if there is any expectation that typical consumers should be able to interpret them, but they are not that really that hard to understand if you actually read them. Also, if you buy boxed software and then find that the EULA is disagreeable, you are allowed to get a refund, at least that is how it works in the USA.
It's not that they are very hard to understand, the problem is alot of the stuff is like that "subject to updates" clause. The english is obvious, but what it actually means is not because your agreement isn't limited to just what is in the EULA, but also by the law of what they are allowed to do. In most cases, when I see something like "subject to updates", I would trust that the law will protect me if they try to pull anything really underhanded, but I really don't know what extent they are allowed to update and stay within the law. Most clauses are like that, intentionally vague and overly broad to the point of being meaningless without further knowledge of the law in that area.
When I worked at renttown, we have *all sorts* of stuff in our agreements. People agreed that we could enter their house to retrieve our stuff without their permission, etc etc, all sorts of other crap and we actually *explained* the agreements and had real honest signatures, no automatic agreements. The only purpose most of that stuff had was to intimidate people who didn't know any better since it's illegal to do those things no matter what the agreement says.
When I worked at renttown, we have *all sorts* of stuff in our agreements. People agreed that we could enter their house to retrieve our stuff without their permission, etc etc, all sorts of other crap and we actually *explained* the agreements and had real honest signatures, no automatic agreements. The only purpose most of that stuff had was to intimidate people who didn't know any better since it's illegal to do those things no matter what the agreement says.
When I worked at renttown, we have *all sorts* of stuff in our agreements. People agreed that we could enter their house to retrieve our stuff without their permission, etc etc, all sorts of other crap and we actually *explained* the agreements and had real honest signatures, no automatic agreements. The only purpose most of that stuff had was to intimidate people who didn't know any better since it's illegal to do those things no matter what the agreement says.
Sounds like a good way to get shot.
Like I say, the point is not to actually try it, but to pretend the agreement allows us to do it to initimidate people who don't know any better into bringing our stuff back / paying their bills ontime / whatever.
That aside, it was actually a pretty dangerous job, since the people who rent a lot of furniture are people who don't want the authorities to know they can afford to have a lot of furniture... One guy paid us a grand in cash every bloody week. I thought I was going to die one day collecting from that guy.
Edit, sorry I exagerate, I think it was more like 1 grand than 4
To answer that one question I saw about the EULA and updates. Think PS3 and after their blowout due to the hacker d-bags that hosed over PSN for months. On the back end of that fall out they upgraded the EULA and rewrote the terms of use of the entire service and also added in a clause so they can't be sued over it. If you refuse to agree to this largely updated set of terms then Sony will block you from using their stuff. So yeah, they can change the terms after you buy the hardware, and effectively take your useful monetary value away from the system by denying the click on a solitary button. Precedent is out there for it and I'd call that just the first shot across the bow.
Also another issue to consider is publisher fallout and YOU being screwed with things being 'connected' all the time. Anyone remember a few years back Amazon-Kindle got into a fight and a few books like '1984' got removed overnight due to a corporate slap fight. People who bought these books woke up to find it erased off their device, and only after a heap of threats over being sued they caved and gave people some cash back and other credits to pacify. Legally speaking Amazon was saving lawyer fees, but given the terms of use on the device at the time they were within their rights.
Stuff like that is why with my Kindle or the iPad I keep my buys under a very cheap price, otherwise I go with stuff I can save a hard copy to my computer (such as Steam backups, MP3s, PDFs, .mobi files, and the rest.
To answer that one question I saw about the EULA and updates. Think PS3 and after their blowout due to the hacker d-bags that hosed over PSN for months. On the back end of that fall out they upgraded the EULA and rewrote the terms of use of the entire service and also added in a clause so they can't be sued over it. If you refuse to agree to this largely updated set of terms then Sony will block you from using their stuff. So yeah, they can change the terms after you buy the hardware, and effectively take your useful monetary value away from the system by denying the click on a solitary button. Precedent is out there for it and I'd call that just the first shot across the bow.
I would only count it as a precedent if they were sued and won.
As it stands, they simply hadn't been sued, yet, so there is no precedent one way, or the other, in terms of what is legally defensible.
I thought they were sued and won over that whole "other OS" thing, which included a similar eula change as well?
Edit: Sony has a new "agreement" every time I want to play a game I don't think there is enough time left in my life to read all the stuff I've supposedly agreed to using the PS3
I was speaking on grounds that no one bothered so it stands, and yeah they did get crap over OtherOS and they did win that one so there is a little ground to it as an EULA was at the heart of it.
Pretty sure the reason they won the Other OS issue is that people voluntarily updated their systems to the new firmware, which involved accepting an updated EULA.
I don't recall it being forced on anybody, they just accepted the update in ignorance.
Well, if the question is whether or not they can change their eula and disable your software unless you agree to the new one, I think it's been established.
Pretty sure the reason they won the Other OS issue is that people voluntarily updated their systems to the new firmware, which involved accepting an updated EULA.
I don't recall it being forced on anybody, they just accepted the update in ignorance.
There were two issues. Some people accepted in ignorance and some people refused to update and couldn't play their games anymore or gave in and updated and lost the otherOS. I only followed it a bit through techdirt, but I think the class action was because of the forced choice, not from the ones who updated without knowing.
Arch at a basic level yeah that's what it was. And let's say when the PS4 comes out and they have this thing on there and the updated MS device, you will like with the current stuff get an EULA on first boot. You can voluntarily agree to take it in the ass, or you can re-box it back up and return it. The courts are clear, no one is forcing you to use the console, you're forcing yourself to put up with that crap or to walk away. It will be the same when they take this route.
The truth of it is, it's not going to be a forced choice with new hardware. It will be there right when it boots, just as it is now if you're a newer 360/PS3 owner and you click that EULA as 'OK' before getting to the menu. As it has always been around these parts, ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.
My dog always accepts the EULAs for me at home anyway. Unless the kid got to em first.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree, I should be able to say something as ridiculous as I never clicked X, someone else did. If I didn't do the magic agreement gesture, I didn't enter the agreement right? Some random kids can figure out whats needed to play PS3, they don't even need direction.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
You do live in a fun alternate reality world. There is no hostage situation there. You do it, or you don't. It almost appeared to be one with the PSN deal, but that came out in court as being acceptable too.
You either like it, or lump it. In the case of a 720 or a PS4 well you read it, deny it, system shuts down, and you return it and the games.
You do live in a fun alternate reality world. There is no hostage situation there. You do it, or you don't. It almost appeared to be one with the PSN deal, but that came out in court as being acceptable too.
You either like it, or lump it. In the case of a 720 or a PS4 well you read it, deny it, system shuts down, and you return it and the games.
Just because the courts said it was acceptable doesn't mean there is no hostage situation. There is, it's just a legal one. Maybe the day I bought my PS3, I could have declined *that* EULA and returned my stuff, but yesterday when prompted for one, what if I didn't like that one? Can I return all my PS3 stuff I bought over the years that won't work if I don't agree? Cause I would gladly do it.
Arch:
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
In the real world it is the responsibility of both parties to understand what they're agreeing to, and deal with the consequences borne of lack of due diligence. The person clicking "OK, I agree", without understanding what they're clicking is doing so through their own failings. Any heartache is nobody's fault but their own.
Comments
Originally posted by: Tanooki
See they're not actually breaking the games, that's the problem. They're in a way actually re-enforcing current laws with a game. Using the NES, back then you bought the plastic, board, chips, paper, stickers, etc and in all of that was 1 copy of a game. You bought the parts and the LICENSE to run one copy of it. With the laws then and now, if you can make a backup you can use it, but not use it and the original at the same time as that's two licenses. So when you forfeit your game to another party, that license is null. So all the companies are doing is selling someone another license and at a cheaper rate than buying a new disc. So unfortunately they're not breaking the law, they're just being jerks about backing it up for once to get paid more.
Actually from what you are saying.. I buy a licensed game at retail price. I am only sold a license to play the game and I do not own it. The disc, case, and manual are just physical materials, not the game. I can legally back up my ability to play the game. I do so. Now I sell the physical materials. I cannot sell the license to play the game, since I don't own the rights. Therefore I retain the rights to my first purchased license. Now the person who purchased the physical disk from me is free to pay $10 for a license to play the software. Basically for a one time purchase of $60 that disk can be passed around to new people that can pay $10 to enjoy the game.
They can't have it both ways. Either they license the ability to play digital content to us and we don't own the rights to anything but an empty physical disk..... or they are selling us a physical game, one or the other.
Originally posted by: JBOGames
I really think it should be a requirement by law that they state in large bold letters on the front of games that you are purchasing a license to play the game, you are not actually purchasing anything to own. Especially since you purchase these games from a third party retailer. You should really have to sign a contract right there at the register. How can I purchase something in a retail setting, then after they have my money, I open up a device I purchased and it tells me I am now entering into a license agreement. What.. No I'm not. I just put cash down at a retail store that sells physical goods. How can this be legal? Can Milton Bradley put a license agreement on the instruction manual that comes inside a board game, that you can only read once you have already payed for the game? Can this license state that if I purchased the game used I must mail MB $10 if I am to be legally allowed to place the pieces on the board and begin moving them around in the fashion MB has copy written?
Sorry this license issue has just annoyed me for a long time.
It's annoying to me because the laws around these issues don't line up anywhere close with my own logic and morals.
To me selling someone something and then waving your magic wand and taking it away is wrong.
To me attempting to trick people into thinking they are getting something other than what you are selling is wrong.
To me forging agreement and understanding in deals with others is wrong.
To the law, as long as anything digital is involved those things seem to be sacrosanct and companies' right to do them is to be protected at all costs.
Edit: Really bugs me because this is my industry and from where I stand they are turning what I always saw as a noble, hard working and fast moving industry that I wanted to be a part of into one full of scammers and racketeers that I don't want anything to do with. Software is turning from a product into a tool in an extortion scheme.
Now in this next generation coming in 2014, the rules are the same except one thing. Now with the hardware playing basically 'net nanny' on your ass you as the license holder are now not allowed to transfer the license directly. To sell the game used, you basically are giving the next owner all that physical stuff I said, but the game itself will only work as a gimp in some form (not likely to not work at all.) Probably in light of what XBL and PSN+ does, the game will work for a defined amount of time, once it expires it will ask you if you're up for 'buying a license to continue playing' and from there you can drop the $10 or whatever and then it just works like a new game out of the box. The thing is, they CAN and they WILL have it that way, it's not illegal, and it does follow the letter of the law as far as licenses on software go. It blows, but it's legal. So you can either let Gamestop take it in the butt on their gouging trade-in-out prices and then buy it cheap and then get the license, or just quit buying used or current gen games entirely. And then once the national infrastructure is there, the next gen system to hit then, if they can manage it, it will be digital entirely.
Originally posted by: RyuHayabusa
. You own nothing. All you're doing is leasing some data. It can be taken away from you, lost, corrupted, hacked, whatever and you have zero control over it.
Guys... this is just NOT true. That is not the way EULAs typically work. I don't think I've ever seen an EULA that gives the distributor the ability to take back what you've paid for, unless you've clearly paid for a time-limited subscription.
Just like and EULA says what you are allowed to do with the software (in terms of copying and distribution on your end), it also binds the provider to hold up their end of the bargain.
I'm guessing most of you guys never actually BUY commercial software on your PCs, so you aren't very familiar with how the rest of the software market already works and has worked for quite some time.
Course, he didn't even have to be there, if they had gone under, the software would be gone for sure.
I'm not sure how it isn't obvious, but if your software needs to connect to a remote server to work, it only works while the remote server is there.
I think the new playstation idea of mandating online for game verification is pretty misguided (steam only requires a one-time "check out" from your game library, for instance), but current console software definitely doesn't require that for download-only content, and I don't expect that "feature" to persist or expand to other systems, since even in our connected world plenty of people still lack persistent online access.
If the industry keeps moving in the current direction, I would be surprised if there wasn't eventually a requirement for unlocking software when they take validation servers offline or cease support in response to those concerns. If nothing else, business will gravitate toward the groups who already offer that assurance and it will force the hand of those who don't.
But again, this stuff is a luxury item and is in no way a necessity, so if you don't agree with what they're doing, just don't give them your business. Nobody needs what any of these guys are selling and it is all purchased by choice.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Steam, specifically, has a master-unlock if they were to ever go under. I expect, as this sort of software arrangement becomes more common, that provisions for similar unlocks would be the rule, rather than the exception.
I think the new playstation idea of mandating online for game verification is pretty misguided (steam only requires a one-time "check out" from your game library, for instance), but current console software definitely doesn't require that for download-only content, and I don't expect that "feature" to persist or expand to other systems, since even in our connected world plenty of people still lack persistent online access.
If the industry keeps moving in the current direction, I would be surprised if there wasn't eventually a requirement for unlocking software when they take validation servers offline or cease support in response to those concerns. If nothing else, business will gravitate toward the groups who already offer that assurance and it will force the hand of those who don't.
But again, this stuff is a luxury item and is in no way a necessity, so if you don't agree with what they're doing, just don't give them your business. Nobody needs what any of these guys are selling and it is all purchased by choice.
Yeah, thats kinda what this thread is about
The only real problem I have is that they don't have to be honest about what they are selling. How am I supposed to know that when I buy install shield that I've agreed to some convoluted terms that let them take my software away? They put everything they can in their agreement, In install shield's case, they put their eula up on the web and the ok box apparently says I agree to whatever is up there. they don't have to stick to what they are actually legally allowed to do in those agreements, they are allowed to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, so you would need a lawyer to figure out which parts are actually important and binding when you clicked the ok box.
And yes, they do have to stick to what is legally allowed and legally binding when they write their EULA.
Also, you are probably picking a bad example to make your case with, since that sort of software isn't typically considered a one-and-done purchase, anyway.
There is a plethora of enterprise software like that where you know up front that you are buying a support subscription for x-number of years.
Almost all professional software works this way, and if it didn't, the upfront costs would have to be ludicrous to support development of newer versions (for engineering software, think something like $100k per seat instead of $10k per seat, for instance).
Permanent licenses for business software are expensive, and justifiably so.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
But they DO have to tell you what you're agreeing to. You are the one that clicks the box that says "OK, I agree"...
And yes, they do have to stick to what is legally allowed and legally binding when they write their EULA.
Also, you are probably picking a bad example to make your case with, since that sort of software isn't typically considered a one-and-done purchase, anyway.
There is a plethora of enterprise software like that where you know up front that you are buying a support subscription for x-number of years.
Almost all professional software works this way, and if it didn't, the upfront costs would have to be ludicrous to support development of newer versions (for engineering software, think something like $100k per seat instead of $10k per seat, for instance).
Permanent licenses for business software are expensive, and justifiably so.
Yes install shield was a done and done purchase, I bought it in the box at staples / futureshop, It's not a subscription model.
They have to "tell" you, but they don't have to make it clear. Thats the problem. EULA's have become an artform of taking as many rights away from the user as possible without them catching on.
Yes, the agreement said it was "subject to updates" (again, not that I actually read it until the guy pulled it on me, because whats the point, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what it actually means anyway) but does that mean they can swap the agreement out for one that says I will give them 10 grand a year for the next 20 years?
probably not, but what exactly does it mean? I have no idea.
Edit: Does it mean they have the right to change the terms without notifying me to say if I don't use their uninstall properly I forfeit my rights to use the software I bought? I'm not actually sure, but thats what the guy claimed it meant.
As for your other arguments, I would agree that EULAs contain too much legalese, if there is any expectation that typical consumers should be able to interpret them, but they are not that really that hard to understand if you actually read them. Also, if you buy boxed software and then find that the EULA is disagreeable, you are allowed to get a refund, at least that is how it works in the USA.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
I'm pretty sure they don't have the right to change the terms after you have agreed to them, without your consent.
As for your other arguments, I would agree that EULAs contain too much legalese, if there is any expectation that typical consumers should be able to interpret them, but they are not that really that hard to understand if you actually read them. Also, if you buy boxed software and then find that the EULA is disagreeable, you are allowed to get a refund, at least that is how it works in the USA.
It's not that they are very hard to understand, the problem is alot of the stuff is like that "subject to updates" clause. The english is obvious, but what it actually means is not because your agreement isn't limited to just what is in the EULA, but also by the law of what they are allowed to do. In most cases, when I see something like "subject to updates", I would trust that the law will protect me if they try to pull anything really underhanded, but I really don't know what extent they are allowed to update and stay within the law. Most clauses are like that, intentionally vague and overly broad to the point of being meaningless without further knowledge of the law in that area.
When I worked at renttown, we have *all sorts* of stuff in our agreements. People agreed that we could enter their house to retrieve our stuff without their permission, etc etc, all sorts of other crap and we actually *explained* the agreements and had real honest signatures, no automatic agreements. The only purpose most of that stuff had was to intimidate people who didn't know any better since it's illegal to do those things no matter what the agreement says.
Originally posted by: cradelit
When I worked at renttown, we have *all sorts* of stuff in our agreements. People agreed that we could enter their house to retrieve our stuff without their permission, etc etc, all sorts of other crap and we actually *explained* the agreements and had real honest signatures, no automatic agreements. The only purpose most of that stuff had was to intimidate people who didn't know any better since it's illegal to do those things no matter what the agreement says.
Sounds like a good way to get shot.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
When I worked at renttown, we have *all sorts* of stuff in our agreements. People agreed that we could enter their house to retrieve our stuff without their permission, etc etc, all sorts of other crap and we actually *explained* the agreements and had real honest signatures, no automatic agreements. The only purpose most of that stuff had was to intimidate people who didn't know any better since it's illegal to do those things no matter what the agreement says.
Sounds like a good way to get shot.
Like I say, the point is not to actually try it, but to pretend the agreement allows us to do it to initimidate people who don't know any better into bringing our stuff back / paying their bills ontime / whatever.
That aside, it was actually a pretty dangerous job, since the people who rent a lot of furniture are people who don't want the authorities to know they can afford to have a lot of furniture... One guy paid us a grand in cash every bloody week. I thought I was going to die one day collecting from that guy.
Edit, sorry I exagerate, I think it was more like 1 grand than 4
Also another issue to consider is publisher fallout and YOU being screwed with things being 'connected' all the time. Anyone remember a few years back Amazon-Kindle got into a fight and a few books like '1984' got removed overnight due to a corporate slap fight. People who bought these books woke up to find it erased off their device, and only after a heap of threats over being sued they caved and gave people some cash back and other credits to pacify. Legally speaking Amazon was saving lawyer fees, but given the terms of use on the device at the time they were within their rights.
Stuff like that is why with my Kindle or the iPad I keep my buys under a very cheap price, otherwise I go with stuff I can save a hard copy to my computer (such as Steam backups, MP3s, PDFs, .mobi files, and the rest.
Originally posted by: Tanooki
To answer that one question I saw about the EULA and updates. Think PS3 and after their blowout due to the hacker d-bags that hosed over PSN for months. On the back end of that fall out they upgraded the EULA and rewrote the terms of use of the entire service and also added in a clause so they can't be sued over it. If you refuse to agree to this largely updated set of terms then Sony will block you from using their stuff. So yeah, they can change the terms after you buy the hardware, and effectively take your useful monetary value away from the system by denying the click on a solitary button. Precedent is out there for it and I'd call that just the first shot across the bow.
I would only count it as a precedent if they were sued and won.
As it stands, they simply hadn't been sued, yet, so there is no precedent one way, or the other, in terms of what is legally defensible.
Edit: Sony has a new "agreement" every time I want to play a game I don't think there is enough time left in my life to read all the stuff I've supposedly agreed to using the PS3
I don't recall it being forced on anybody, they just accepted the update in ignorance.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Pretty sure the reason they won the Other OS issue is that people voluntarily updated their systems to the new firmware, which involved accepting an updated EULA.
I don't recall it being forced on anybody, they just accepted the update in ignorance.
There were two issues. Some people accepted in ignorance and some people refused to update and couldn't play their games anymore or gave in and updated and lost the otherOS. I only followed it a bit through techdirt, but I think the class action was because of the forced choice, not from the ones who updated without knowing.
The truth of it is, it's not going to be a forced choice with new hardware. It will be there right when it boots, just as it is now if you're a newer 360/PS3 owner and you click that EULA as 'OK' before getting to the menu. As it has always been around these parts, ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree, I should be able to say something as ridiculous as I never clicked X, someone else did. If I didn't do the magic agreement gesture, I didn't enter the agreement right? Some random kids can figure out whats needed to play PS3, they don't even need direction.
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
You either like it, or lump it. In the case of a 720 or a PS4 well you read it, deny it, system shuts down, and you return it and the games.
Originally posted by: Tanooki
You do live in a fun alternate reality world. There is no hostage situation there. You do it, or you don't. It almost appeared to be one with the PSN deal, but that came out in court as being acceptable too.
You either like it, or lump it. In the case of a 720 or a PS4 well you read it, deny it, system shuts down, and you return it and the games.
Just because the courts said it was acceptable doesn't mean there is no hostage situation. There is, it's just a legal one. Maybe the day I bought my PS3, I could have declined *that* EULA and returned my stuff, but yesterday when prompted for one, what if I didn't like that one? Can I return all my PS3 stuff I bought over the years that won't work if I don't agree? Cause I would gladly do it.
Arch:
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
Originally posted by: cradelit
Arch:
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
In the real world it is the responsibility of both parties to understand what they're agreeing to, and deal with the consequences borne of lack of due diligence. The person clicking "OK, I agree", without understanding what they're clicking is doing so through their own failings. Any heartache is nobody's fault but their own.