55 réponses à ce sujet

[dunniteowl]

Well Urk, you are entitled to your point of view. The way I see it, is that the agreement, made without any sort of ability to discuss it beforehand and the way it's written and 'enforced' is not fair, not honest and not something that bodes well when you talk about trust.



So, even though, as I said, I think most people sort of inherently DO respect the IP, whether it's Atari or some other company, the fact of that agreement is also inherenly unfair, and is, in all point of fact only able to be agreed to after money has change hands, so my analogy about the car rental doesn't fall flat, it exemplifies the current state of affairs with any EULA that is not printed on the OUTSIDE of the box.

Money changes hands at the retail PoS, a receipt is given (it doesn't matter whether or not the Software CODE is not owned, you are a game owner at the point, period, according to Consumer Law, but even so you can't say you made Monopoly or Parcheesi or NWN or NWN2 or that you own the rights to it. You do, legally own THAT particular game with that particular purchase and that's an unalterable FACT of law.)

So, as a game owner, who already has a receipt, I have in hand, proof of a contract of exchange that says I have a right to use this product, bar none. Where's the EULA at that point?

Oh, right. It's an agreement between acquaintances that I have yet to see until I get home, break the shrink wrap (thus creating a conundrum of return/exchange possibility) and start handling the items inside the box. In fact, until I start installing, there's no indication really that a EULA even exists. *(now I know that there is a EULA printed in the Manual, then again, though, we're talking after purchase, after getting home and after opening the box.)

That's not exactly the same as signing a contract or making an agreement to borrow someone's car. That would be like you allowing me to borrow your car and not telling me not to take it into the city, but instead, placing a note to that effect in the glovebox and not telling me.

That's my point with the car analogy, the money changed hands, then I am suddenly being told to sign something that now tells me how and where I can use the vehicle. (It doesn't matter whether or not it actually happened, this is that hypothetical thing I mentioned earlier,) It is, inherently, a dishonest way to deal with another person.

So, considering the actual situation. EULA inside a box that has to be purchased, taken home (or if you can't wait, opened then and there) and then opened before you can even become acquainted with the fact of said EULA. That's inherently unfair, dishonest and the agreement is pretty lopsided. That's why it's not legally binding. If it could be made legally binding, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be.

Now all that aside, many of the provisions of the EULA are not overly complicated, nor are they completely unreasonable. And, as most of those provisions are covered, as I stipulated earlier, under Copyright Law, and as far as Warranty and Merchantability, under Consumer Law, the Agreement itself really doesn't mean all that much legally. As to keeping one's word, that's a good point and certainly would make a difference in your franchise hypothetical scenario. In this particular case, though, I'd offer that it doesn't represent the situation well vis-a-vis the Publisher/Customer relationship the EULA holds.

And again, I don't think anyone here indicated that the IP rights of Atari or the Copyright issues were something to disrespect or ignore. Be aware of, certainly. And as regards ignoring or hoping some other company doesn't pay attention to use of copyrighted material, it was mentioned and done so in a 'realpolitik' sense. IN other words, it is advised against, though as long as you're respectful and not attempting to make money or cause damage, then you'll probably be okay anyway.

And yeah, a promise is a promise. I tend to keep mine, even when I find myself in a bad situation due to not paying attention to the finer print. My word is my bond and my handshake means something to me and my sense of personal integrity -- as I believe it still does to many, if not most, people. That said, I can agree to an agreement I know is inherently unfair and unenforceable in some situations and ignore the parts I find offensive, objectionable and/or unconscionable to no detriment of my personal integrity. You can't promise someone something that, on it's face, is not something you'd do in the first place under any reasonable circumstances -- especially after my money has changed hands and I then have to agree or take back something that is now very difficult to return, if not almost impossible depending on the mood and attitude of the store employees when I go back. That constitutes a level of duress in any sense of the word where you are put in a position that makes things hard to do and forces you to go through extra work that you would not otherwise have to do under normal circumstances.

It's not life threatening, but it is a form of duress.



That's all I'm really saying. And while I do like to keep my promises and am aware of the potential issues of making them, making them sight unseen (I already purchased the item) is not the right way to conduct honest business -- or agreements.



dunniteowl

[Urk]

Oh come on, now your just being spurious. You expect them to print the entire licensing agreement on the outside of the box? Really? That's gonna be some pretty small print, and it won't leave much room for things like... well... anything else.



As you said yourself, if you don't like the terms of the agreement, if you find it unfair, you can always return the game.



You can't blame Atari because the retailers have a burr in their bottoms about accepting returns. You did, after all, choose to shop there.

[Hellfire_RWS]

Urk wrote...

 if you find it unfair, you can always return the game.

You can't blame Atari because the retailers have a burr in their bottoms about accepting returns. You did, after all, choose to shop there.

No you can not return opened software ANYWHRE that sells software where I live. You can only exchange it for the exact same product.
To say it fair to turn over all the rights to stuff we create is just crazy, and quoting respect of Atari’s IP?  I do respect it. I do not disassemble, redistribute or crack it any way. I do not pass their work off as my own or try to sell their product for profit.   How about being reasonable and saying Atari should do the same. (which they do), Instead of quoting some line in the EULA that Atari put there to protect their profits, not to steal others works.
 

[dunniteowl]

Well Urk it's obvious you and I will not and do not see eye to eye here. I would argue further or explicate more, though that's clear as the EULA that you won't see where I'm (and many others, apparently) coming from in this particular regard. So the best point to make here is to agree to disagree and let's move on from there.



dunniteowl

[painofdungeoneternal]

I agree. It's a non issue since despite my ignoring the EULA, the publsher ignores it as well, and it's largely ignored by the courts. So lets ignore it in this thread as well.

The publisher grants you the right to make things with the toolset, and to share them, and it's marketed as such. That is what is important.

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 29 août 2010 - 07:34 .

[Urk]

Hellfire_RWS wrote...

...you can not return opened software ANYWHRE that sells software where I live. You can only exchange it for the exact same product.
 

You can't blame Atari for that. That's an issue you need to work out with the retailers. My suggestion would be to buy online. That way you can get a good look at the EULA before you complete your purchase.

Atari's "ownership" of your IP is not a legal transfer. I thought that was pretty well established. Again... the Eula is not a legal document and if you want to enforce your IP on an NWN submission you can do that, and you'll win. The EULA is not a contract, Hellfire: all the EULA is is an agreement. How many times have I said that now? Like 3? 4?

What the EULA is telling you is that if you intend to do that, claim IP rights over distributed NWN content, you are operating outside the lisence you purchased and Atari does not authorize you to use the toolset.

Like Dun and Pain said, though... this is an entirely academic argument. I've also contented myself to agree to disagree. It's not like it's my property/brand being licensed, and seeing as their CD keys are still active Atari clearly doesn't really care, either.

Hellfire_RWS wrote...
I do respect it. I do not disassemble,
redistribute or crack it any way. I do not pass their work off as my own
or try to sell their product for profit. 
 

That's got nothing to do with respecting Atari's IP. That's just you not wanting to go to jail. The things you're talking about here are not lisencing issues. What you're talking about here is crossing well outside the realm of a EULA stipulation. It's prosecutable criminal activity. Just plain  theft.

Modifié par Urk, 30 août 2010 - 03:11 .