The User Agreement - Who owns your account?
Sooty
http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php
Just wondering if anyone had any insights into this part of the agreement:
(c) Rights to Use Accounts. By agreeing to the User Agreement you agree that you do not own either the Master Account or Game Account (collectively, the "Account") you use to access the service, the characters created on the Account and that NC Interactive stores on NC Interactive servers, the items stored on these servers, or any other data from which the servers and accounts are comprised. The Account you create is needed to login to the service as per section 4(b) and the fee that you pay is to access new Chapters.
Does this mean that we don't own our accounts or anything on them? If so, what did we buy when we bought the game?
Just wondering if anyone had any insights into this part of the agreement:
(c) Rights to Use Accounts. By agreeing to the User Agreement you agree that you do not own either the Master Account or Game Account (collectively, the "Account") you use to access the service, the characters created on the Account and that NC Interactive stores on NC Interactive servers, the items stored on these servers, or any other data from which the servers and accounts are comprised. The Account you create is needed to login to the service as per section 4(b) and the fee that you pay is to access new Chapters.
Does this mean that we don't own our accounts or anything on them? If so, what did we buy when we bought the game?
Zinger314
We bought the right to access ArenaNet's servers.
KamikazeChicken
Anet has always owned my account. >.> That part never changes, no matter what they add/edit in the EULA.
Sooty
alrighty then, thx for clearing that up.
arcanemacabre
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure every MMO (and MMO-like) game out there have the same clause in their EULA. It's a way they can cover their a$$es in case anything screwy ever happens to the data, or they need to shut down, or whatever. This way, no one can sue them for 'stealing' their stuff, as it's not theirs to begin with, it's Anets (or NCSoft, whatever).
Numa Pompilius
What you buy when you buy GW (or any MMO) is a CD with software and a license to have access to their servers ( = have an account).
It's like buying a fishing license, or a phone card: you don't actually buy the lake, or the telephone lines, just a right to use them.
It's like buying a fishing license, or a phone card: you don't actually buy the lake, or the telephone lines, just a right to use them.
Curse You
This all relates back to the old Law trick of video games. All video games are "owned" by their respective companies. When you buy the CD, you gain the right to acess the comanies' game. They are free to take away this right, as it is their game to begin with. As well, it makes them free to patch and change their games without anyone being able to sue them.
Numa Pompilius
Curse You: That's actually a bit different.
With a single-player video game, you do really buy the game (just like you really do buy, say, a car), but you don't buy the rights to the game. You can't, say, sell the movie rights, or start making and selling copies, just because you've bought Tomb Raider.
But you do in fact own the game and have the right to do whatever you want with it, including hacking & reverse engineering it, as long as you don't redistribute it - the "single user license" thing is wishful thinking on the part of the software companies* and AFAIK they've never even tried to have it upheld in court.
With a MMO it is different. You do in fact own the game there too, but the game can not be played without access to a server - and the server most definitely is not owned by you.
* At present "wishful thinking on the part of the software companies" pretty much sums up EULAs and shrink-wrap licenses wrt single-user offline software; they are not legally binding contracts in most places.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
With a single-player video game, you do really buy the game (just like you really do buy, say, a car), but you don't buy the rights to the game. You can't, say, sell the movie rights, or start making and selling copies, just because you've bought Tomb Raider.
But you do in fact own the game and have the right to do whatever you want with it, including hacking & reverse engineering it, as long as you don't redistribute it - the "single user license" thing is wishful thinking on the part of the software companies* and AFAIK they've never even tried to have it upheld in court.
With a MMO it is different. You do in fact own the game there too, but the game can not be played without access to a server - and the server most definitely is not owned by you.
* At present "wishful thinking on the part of the software companies" pretty much sums up EULAs and shrink-wrap licenses wrt single-user offline software; they are not legally binding contracts in most places.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Curse You
OK should have clarified, what I said only applies to online games, games that require some online interation. Even BF2 falls into this category, because they have that whole "rank" sytem that makes it so you have to update.
Xenrath
Quite frankly I think software licenses need to be looked at by independent world organisations and a slap on the wrist issued to the industry as a whole. The way they word it (not just Anet, but this is virtually all software companies) - it's basically a license to produce broken programs, and they can get away with it.
You'd never have that kind of "agreement" when you buy most other products e.g. if you buy a sports car, you would never agree to a license which only gives you permission to drive it (it isn't yours) and on top of that the car arrives with bits missing, or breaks down regularly etc.
It will of course, probably never happen though.
p.s. I come from a software background so yes, I know there will always be undiscovered bugs etc. that I can appreciate.
You'd never have that kind of "agreement" when you buy most other products e.g. if you buy a sports car, you would never agree to a license which only gives you permission to drive it (it isn't yours) and on top of that the car arrives with bits missing, or breaks down regularly etc.
It will of course, probably never happen though.
p.s. I come from a software background so yes, I know there will always be undiscovered bugs etc. that I can appreciate.
Avarre
Meh, the EULA states that Anet owns your account and everything in it, and can do anything with it. You have purchased the right to access Anet's property (the account), however Anet reserves the right to terminate that.
This is why there is little real argument against banning other than appealing to Anet to unban you if you were innocent...
This is why there is little real argument against banning other than appealing to Anet to unban you if you were innocent...
Silent Kitty
You own the disk, and the program that connects to the server. You are also owner of the little books and other papers that came with the package. There is where the ownership ends.
I think that WoW players have a similar contract. Though they pay every month, they still not own the account.
I think that WoW players have a similar contract. Though they pay every month, they still not own the account.
Curse You
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenrath
You'd never have that kind of "agreement" when you buy most other products e.g. if you buy a sports car, you would never agree to a license which only gives you permission to drive it (it isn't yours) and on top of that the car arrives with bits missing, or breaks down regularly etc.
|
When you buy a car, you do not just get acess to a server that lets you drive a car in Mexico, you get a car (a tangible object). This all plays into the verb "to be" (etre in french :P), and in the case of the car, it IS, while your account's data IS NOT (in the normal sense).
Xenrath
Oh here we go again lol I like to use the car example sure, but the point is not to take it literally. But if you want to talk about non-tangible products another example might be websites.
After all that's "only data" and no physical item. If you buy a website from someone firstly, you'd expect it to be in reasonable working order and not come with terms and conditions which mean the guy you paid for it can deliver something buggy/incomplete (and also change it to anything whenever he likes). Also, that doesn't mean whoever hosts your website owns it.
There are probably lots of other examples, all of which are beside the point (look beyond the trees, at the wood)
A product is a product, if it is tangible or not. I personally think it's taking the cake to have terms and conditions which (from a consumer point of view) let the supplier get away with just about anything.
After all that's "only data" and no physical item. If you buy a website from someone firstly, you'd expect it to be in reasonable working order and not come with terms and conditions which mean the guy you paid for it can deliver something buggy/incomplete (and also change it to anything whenever he likes). Also, that doesn't mean whoever hosts your website owns it.
There are probably lots of other examples, all of which are beside the point (look beyond the trees, at the wood)
A product is a product, if it is tangible or not. I personally think it's taking the cake to have terms and conditions which (from a consumer point of view) let the supplier get away with just about anything.
Numa Pompilius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curse You
That is possibly the worst comparision. When you buy a car, you get a physical object, nothing more. A game like Guild Wars, is stored on servers run by the company, and so they have exclusive rights to all virtual things on those servers.
|
Having your account revoked means your computer game isn't functional any more - and that's pretty extreme for something you've paid for, considering that you've never signed a contract wrt the rules (the EULA isn't a contract in most parts of the world; for most gamers it has all the legal power of a 'readme' file).
Personally I suspect someone who got their account yanked _could_ conceivably have a case, as it's a matter of their reasonable expectation of being able to use the game versus the right of the publisher to restrict access to their servers. Who in their right mind would risk personal bankruptcy over $40, though?
And again, in pretty much the entire world it doesn't matter one whit what it says in the EULA: it's not a contract because it's not bilateral, and hence neither the publisher nor the user are bound by it. It's basically a readme intended to scare users into not suing.
Inde
On a related note, there's an interesting article on EA's (Electronic Art's) Privacy Policy and who has the right to pass along your information (name, address, credit card information) that some of you may want to read. I know there was a question over at GWO for our Eurpoean friends on how the information from the Guild Wars Store is being passed along. Which Gaile answered by posting this link: http://www.plaync.com/us/help/privacy.html But it's something to be aware of, how your personal information is being passed along, for any game that you play.
An Invasion of Privacy Policy?
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/26475
The basis of the article is below:
An Invasion of Privacy Policy?
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/26475
The basis of the article is below:
Quote:
Quote:
This mention of EA Online as being something to which I am registered seemed odd, as I don’t recall having seen the brand EA Online associated with my Xbox Live gaming experience in the past, and certainly don’t recall authorizing or even being made aware that an account was being made with EA Online on my behalf. I suppose it's possible that at some point over the years I played an EA game where it was made at least vaguely clear to me that I was registering with EA Online, but they’ve certainly not made a point since of reminding me that my playing EA games online represents my membership in something called EA Online or that I've authorized the extraction of private information such as my phone or VISA card number. To verify this, I fired up my copy of NCAA Football 2007, and hunted high and low within the game, in the provided instruction manual, or on the retail box for any mention of EA Online or the necessity of having such an account for Xbox Live play. As far as I could tell, the EA Online brand is not mentioned even once, nor, certainly, the rights you will relinquish by playing. Whether Electronic Arts is actually gathering credit card numbers, demographic information, click paths, birthdates, or any of the other multitude of chocolate covered data nuggets at their disposal when you actually log onto an EA Online game is not entirely clear. That is why I contacted their provided email address at [email protected], identified myself and expressed my interest in clearing up any possible confusion for our readers. |
Guildmaster Cain
What if they changed something in the agreement? Because once every so months u get a popup with asking you to agree again.
What if you dont agree, you cant play anymore... does that mean you can charge your money back? I never figured these license agreements. Ofcourse you WILL agree, because if you dont, you cant play the game you bought with your hard-earned money... So in the mean time, they can change anything in the agreement as they please, because not agreeing will disable you from the game.
What if you dont agree, you cant play anymore... does that mean you can charge your money back? I never figured these license agreements. Ofcourse you WILL agree, because if you dont, you cant play the game you bought with your hard-earned money... So in the mean time, they can change anything in the agreement as they please, because not agreeing will disable you from the game.
majoho
I'm all for consumer protection, but some people don't seem to have much grasp of reality.
If it was like some of you actually think it is there wouldn't be any company in the world providing gaming services since they would be using all their money on attorneys with bickering customers demanding refunds, ingame items and such.
As was said before ALL you get when you buy an online game is a box with the game/manual and the right to access the server - that's it.
And to repeat myself if it was any different there wouldn't BE any games to play online since it wouldn't be feasable.
If it was like some of you actually think it is there wouldn't be any company in the world providing gaming services since they would be using all their money on attorneys with bickering customers demanding refunds, ingame items and such.
As was said before ALL you get when you buy an online game is a box with the game/manual and the right to access the server - that's it.
And to repeat myself if it was any different there wouldn't BE any games to play online since it wouldn't be feasable.
Silent Kitty
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoho
As was said before ALL you get when you buy an online game is a box with the game/manual and the right to access the server - that's it. |
Gottit?
Omega X
Regardless of who's EULA says what, the personal information in those accounts DO NOT belong to the company that its given to.
You can properly SUE companies that misuse that information.
It happened time and time again.
Congress is getting ready to push laws that ban companies that share your electronic information to other companies. And a bunch of other laws related to e-privacy.
SO they can change the EULA how they see fit, they will never get off easy.
EDIT:
However, it seems that they are trying to CLAIM the game related data. Like Character Names, toon graphics and rankings, guild data and stuff not related to Personal Information.
You can properly SUE companies that misuse that information.
It happened time and time again.
Congress is getting ready to push laws that ban companies that share your electronic information to other companies. And a bunch of other laws related to e-privacy.
SO they can change the EULA how they see fit, they will never get off easy.
EDIT:
However, it seems that they are trying to CLAIM the game related data. Like Character Names, toon graphics and rankings, guild data and stuff not related to Personal Information.
Alias_X
They own my account, thats why I can't ebay it x_x
Horseman Of War
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
What you buy when you buy GW (or any MMO) is a CD with software and a license to have access to their servers ( = have an account).
It's like buying a fishing license, or a phone card: you don't actually buy the lake, or the telephone lines, just a right to use them. |
that is the most insightful analogy ive ever read on this forum
that pretty much sums it up!
Age
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
Curse You: That's actually a bit different.
With a single-player video game, you do really buy the game (just like you really do buy, say, a car), but you don't buy the rights to the game. You can't, say, sell the movie rights, or start making and selling copies, just because you've bought Tomb Raider. But you do in fact own the game and have the right to do whatever you want with it, including hacking & reverse engineering it, as long as you don't redistribute it - the "single user license" thing is wishful thinking on the part of the software companies* and AFAIK they've never even tried to have it upheld in court. With a MMO it is different. You do in fact own the game there too, but the game can not be played without access to a server - and the server most definitely is not owned by you. * At present "wishful thinking on the part of the software companies" pretty much sums up EULAs and shrink-wrap licenses wrt single-user offline software; they are not legally binding contracts in most places. Disclaimer: IANAL. |
Quote:
But you do in fact own the game and have the right to do whatever you want with it, including hacking & reverse engineering it, as long as you don't redistribute it - the "single user license" thing is wishful thinking on the part of the software companies* and AFAIK they've never even tried to have it upheld in court. |
When it does come to GW though you do own the CD key that comes with and that is an important part of a game without it you can't play.I highly doubt they would ever want to delete someones account if they broke parts of the eula like you said it is not a written and signed contract.You could contact some consumer protection agency to see what they can do if it was deleted.You did invest lots of time into GW in the end you could always sell your used copy of the game for the lose or see if NcSoft will puchase it back they are the Publisher after all.
Alex Weekes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inde
On a related note, there's an interesting article on EA's (Electronic Art's) Privacy Policy and who has the right to pass along your information (name, address, credit card information) that some of you may want to read. I know there was a question over at GWO for our Eurpoean friends on how the information from the Guild Wars Store is being passed along. Which Gaile answered by posting this link: http://www.plaync.com/us/help/privacy.html But it's something to be aware of, how your personal information is being passed along, for any game that you play.
|
Numa Pompilius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Age
This is True except this part.
You can't hack into it or reverse engineer it as it is still under it own eula it is when it only becomes abondonware is when you can do this. |
Of course you are. You're not allowed to sell copies of the book, or sell the movie rights for it, though, because although you own the book, you don't own the intellectual rights.
2) There is no such thing as "abandonware". Computer games are protected by copyright until _70 years after the death of the longest-living person involved in the creation of the software_.
Abandonware sites like the Underdogs etc are pirate sites, filled with pirate software. It's just that the people who actually do own the rights to the software don't care and hasn't requested they remove them from download.
Count to Potato
So basically when they ban an account, do you have a right to fight back, or does Anet have legal juristiction to do whatever they want with that account?
Sir Skullcrasher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinger314
We bought the right to access ArenaNet's servers.
|
I agree, we brought the right to use the account on ArenaNet's servers. That is how most MMORPG has in their User Agreement that you don't own the account rather you brought part of their server access.
MooseyFate
This is the problem with any game that has no offline component. And it's why I play very very few online only games. NC Soft is being corporate-annoying and just watching their back, but annoying players make them have to do it. Think of it as only semantics. It sucks that you have to worry about this agreement, and the more often they have one, the colder the company seems. But it really doesn't change gameplay any. You had to rely on their servers before to play, and you will still have to going on.
I just fear the trend in games trying to be online only. Then what will happen when these games get old and you can't play for "old times sake". That's important to me. It would be very easy for ANet to set GW up like Diablo, with the ability to make an offline only or online only character. Of course compeditive areas wouldn't work, but the rest would still work. I am mainly PvP, but I'd still like to see the PvE option. Won't happen though.
I just fear the trend in games trying to be online only. Then what will happen when these games get old and you can't play for "old times sake". That's important to me. It would be very easy for ANet to set GW up like Diablo, with the ability to make an offline only or online only character. Of course compeditive areas wouldn't work, but the rest would still work. I am mainly PvP, but I'd still like to see the PvE option. Won't happen though.
Mr_eX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinger314
We bought the right to access ArenaNet's servers.
|
That said, play by the rules--don't grief, don't scam people, don't use 'sploitz, don't buy/sell in-game items on eBay--and no harm will come to you.
Omega X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
1) The EULA means nothing at all. What counts is that you own your software, and as its your property you're free to do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't infringe on the intellectual rights. It's like, say, you buy a book. Are you allowed to cut pages from the book? Rearrange the pages? Sell the book?
Of course you are. You're not allowed to sell copies of the book, or sell the movie rights for it, though, because although you own the book, you don't own the intellectual rights. |
Why? Because current EULA's say that you DO NOT own the software. The EULA's and general "contracts" for using modern software/media now days says that you are LICENSED rights to USE the software/media and that you in fact DO NOT own what is on the disc. Which I think was stemmed from the DCMA law. That has also spread to Movies and Music. (Remember DRM? Exactly what it stems from...)
Which basically means that you bought a piece of plastic.
But the EULA in this case is claiming Accounts, which means accounts can't be simply bought or sold by a 3rd Party. But the Box, Books, paper media and CD can be sold on Ebay, but the person/persons would have to buy an account from NC Soft. Which kind of defeats the purpose of selling it in the first place, unless you lost the book or something.
Numa Pompilius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count to Potato
So basically when they ban an account, do you have a right to fight back, or does Anet have legal juristiction to do whatever they want with that account?
|
Sir Skullcrasher
So is this why A-Net has the right to ban your account if you do anything illegal?
Numa Pompilius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega X
That's funny. Very Funny.
Why? Because current EULA's say that you DO NOT own the software. |
Quote:
Which basically means that you bought a piece of plastic. But the EULA in this case is claiming Accounts, which means accounts can't be simply bought or sold by a 3rd Party. |
But with an MMO you have the account, and things get unclear.
I don't really want to take a guess on what really goes there. I'm not even sure _anyone_ knows.
However, I'd say that if you do sell your account (with email account) and don't rub it in ANets face, they're unlikely to ever find out.
TheUndertaker
Actually know one does know yet, b/c the few shrinkwrap cases decided have been decided both ways.
I think a person may have a good argument to rescind their contract and get their money back if GW were to ban and you had just bought the game and hadn't played been able to play a reasonable amount of time. Anet made a good faith agreement to provide us w/ a game and they would violate that by not providing the game. They CAN'T do whatever they want b/c it says so in the EULA.
The EULA agreement cases like I said before have been decided both ways.
However, I think a person could make a good case to not be bound by the EULA because it may be unconscionable (which means procedurally and substantially unfair to one party), and therefore unenforcable.
It is unconscionable b/c:
1. It is a standard adhesion contract. (We had no say so in the terms.)
2. There is a large bargaining power difference. (There is, they have all the power).
3. Terms are hidden or hard to understand. ( No one even reads that crap, and if they did they wouldn't understand it w/o a law degree).
Lastly, it would have to be unfair to us. It is if they can do whatever they want and we have no recourse.
I think a person may have a good argument to rescind their contract and get their money back if GW were to ban and you had just bought the game and hadn't played been able to play a reasonable amount of time. Anet made a good faith agreement to provide us w/ a game and they would violate that by not providing the game. They CAN'T do whatever they want b/c it says so in the EULA.
The EULA agreement cases like I said before have been decided both ways.
However, I think a person could make a good case to not be bound by the EULA because it may be unconscionable (which means procedurally and substantially unfair to one party), and therefore unenforcable.
It is unconscionable b/c:
1. It is a standard adhesion contract. (We had no say so in the terms.)
2. There is a large bargaining power difference. (There is, they have all the power).
3. Terms are hidden or hard to understand. ( No one even reads that crap, and if they did they wouldn't understand it w/o a law degree).
Lastly, it would have to be unfair to us. It is if they can do whatever they want and we have no recourse.
hoyalawya
Don't see this point raised yet. Basically, if our accounts get hacked or that there is a hiccup on ANet or NcSoft servers and our inventory or our characters got wiped, we won't have a legal cause of action againt them since we do not own those contents.
Omega X
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUndertaker
Actually know one does know yet, b/c the few shrinkwrap cases decided have been decided both ways.
I think a person may have a good argument to rescind their contract and get their money back if GW were to ban and you had just bought the game and hadn't played been able to play a reasonable amount of time. Anet made a good faith agreement to provide us w/ a game and they would violate that by not providing the game. They CAN'T do whatever they want b/c it says so in the EULA. The EULA agreement cases like I said before have been decided both ways. However, I think a person could make a good case to not be bound by the EULA because it may be unconscionable (which means procedurally and substantially unfair to one party), and therefore unenforcable. It is unconscionable b/c: 1. It is a standard adhesion contract. (We had no say so in the terms.) 2. There is a large bargaining power difference. (There is, they have all the power). 3. Terms are hidden or hard to understand. ( No one even reads that crap, and if they did they wouldn't understand it w/o a law degree). Lastly, it would have to be unfair to us. It is if they can do whatever they want and we have no recourse. |
They can claim that stronger stipulations are in the EULA because its global, but if the country that the violation happened does not fall within the lines of the laws there, their claim goes out of the window.
And with the popularity of Online Services that water is about to get deeper for companies who think that they can do dirt and never pay for it. So they can either swim with us now or drown from the ignorance.
But I love the EULA controversies. I've seen too many companies revise their EULAs just to have it revised again with users in mind by the heat of lawsuits.
Fungus Amongus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
But you do in fact own the game and have the right to do whatever you want with it, including hacking & reverse engineering it, as long as you don't redistribute it - the "single user license" thing is wishful thinking on the part of the software companies* and AFAIK they've never even tried to have it upheld in court.
|
Key words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
as long as you don't redistribute it
|
Age
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius But you do in fact own the game and have the right to do whatever you want with it, including hacking & reverse engineering it, as long as you don't redistribute it - the "single user license" thing is wishful thinking on the part of the software companies* and AFAIK they've never even tried to have it upheld in court. |
strcpy
EULA's have several issues. There are WAY more than I will list below, but they are some of the major ones. This only applies to the US.
One is the ability to negotiate (refuse). You do not get that until *after* you purchase the software with no ability to return it (opened software). That is an illegal contract - it's like saying "By reading this you agree to <whatever> - you can not do that. You have federal laws protecting this. There have been some amusing cases where unemployeed programmers sue microsoft for 250 dollars for the version of XP included on thier computers. In one case Microsoft was forced to either sale the person liscenses for XP at 5 dollars or refund all 250 dollars. The "reasoning" thier lawyer gave nearly got them fined.
Another is, as was mentioned, many of the consumer protection laws. There are ideas that we hold to be true - they can not be signed away. To a person familiar with software much of the EULA stipulations violate this. Until it goes through the court systems we will never know for sure. Some of this is also state specific - I think EULA's are mostly useless in California due to state laws and circuit court decisions.
Things that do not work - "clever" working around the law. Having you cousin click accept, using software to bypass the EULA, and those things. You are making a Bad Faith type of thing and the courts generally squish you VERY hard (too much of law depends on you respecting it). Famous or rich *may* get away with it - you will not. Abondonware doesn't count either - just that if no one cares or no one knows who owns the rights you will not be bothered.
However, it is not clear if - in good faith - someone who you have hired to manage your IT infrastructure clicks "OK" for the EULA and you violate it. Especially given the shakey ground that EULA's are on in the beginning. But, again, that is VERY different from asking your sister to click "OK" so the contract doesn't apply to you. I would guess that in the above case the person/company you hired to manage your IT is liable - after all that is what you are paying them for.
The DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) also throws some loops in it. Reverse engineering *may* be illegal except in limited educational instances (again, being cute with the courts is a quick way to loose and get the maximum penalty). Again, it hasn't gone through courts so who knows?
Of of the things that occurs is that companies will only prosecute cases they know they can win. So a lot of this stuff my be decades before it is sorted out. Lawyers try and prosecute small cases to build case law and use the stuff they aren't sure about as a giant bat. Basically you get a letter from EA saying they will spend millions unless you comply with XXX regulation and you normally will. Fight it enough and the tend to drop it - don't want the chance of that bat being found unconstitutional. Right now if they think they can win you get the court order - they need the positive case law.
We get them for the same reason dump trucks have the sign on the bak that reads "not responsible for falling objects" (yes, you are - that's one of those "by reading this you agree.." contracts, the law states you are and simply putting up a sign saying you are not doesn't work). The vast majority of people will follow the sign and not think anything more about it. Plus with EULA's not tested in court they *might* end up being binding.
If you ever feel like being a project manager this sorta crap all of a sudden becomes important. Not only do you need to know software development practices but you need this. IMO software is one of the most complicated entities on the planet right now - until a lot of issues are finally worked out you need to have your hands in too many departments. But then, that is what makes it interesting to be one
One is the ability to negotiate (refuse). You do not get that until *after* you purchase the software with no ability to return it (opened software). That is an illegal contract - it's like saying "By reading this you agree to <whatever> - you can not do that. You have federal laws protecting this. There have been some amusing cases where unemployeed programmers sue microsoft for 250 dollars for the version of XP included on thier computers. In one case Microsoft was forced to either sale the person liscenses for XP at 5 dollars or refund all 250 dollars. The "reasoning" thier lawyer gave nearly got them fined.
Another is, as was mentioned, many of the consumer protection laws. There are ideas that we hold to be true - they can not be signed away. To a person familiar with software much of the EULA stipulations violate this. Until it goes through the court systems we will never know for sure. Some of this is also state specific - I think EULA's are mostly useless in California due to state laws and circuit court decisions.
Things that do not work - "clever" working around the law. Having you cousin click accept, using software to bypass the EULA, and those things. You are making a Bad Faith type of thing and the courts generally squish you VERY hard (too much of law depends on you respecting it). Famous or rich *may* get away with it - you will not. Abondonware doesn't count either - just that if no one cares or no one knows who owns the rights you will not be bothered.
However, it is not clear if - in good faith - someone who you have hired to manage your IT infrastructure clicks "OK" for the EULA and you violate it. Especially given the shakey ground that EULA's are on in the beginning. But, again, that is VERY different from asking your sister to click "OK" so the contract doesn't apply to you. I would guess that in the above case the person/company you hired to manage your IT is liable - after all that is what you are paying them for.
The DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) also throws some loops in it. Reverse engineering *may* be illegal except in limited educational instances (again, being cute with the courts is a quick way to loose and get the maximum penalty). Again, it hasn't gone through courts so who knows?
Of of the things that occurs is that companies will only prosecute cases they know they can win. So a lot of this stuff my be decades before it is sorted out. Lawyers try and prosecute small cases to build case law and use the stuff they aren't sure about as a giant bat. Basically you get a letter from EA saying they will spend millions unless you comply with XXX regulation and you normally will. Fight it enough and the tend to drop it - don't want the chance of that bat being found unconstitutional. Right now if they think they can win you get the court order - they need the positive case law.
We get them for the same reason dump trucks have the sign on the bak that reads "not responsible for falling objects" (yes, you are - that's one of those "by reading this you agree.." contracts, the law states you are and simply putting up a sign saying you are not doesn't work). The vast majority of people will follow the sign and not think anything more about it. Plus with EULA's not tested in court they *might* end up being binding.
If you ever feel like being a project manager this sorta crap all of a sudden becomes important. Not only do you need to know software development practices but you need this. IMO software is one of the most complicated entities on the planet right now - until a lot of issues are finally worked out you need to have your hands in too many departments. But then, that is what makes it interesting to be one