480 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Naitaka wrote...
 If we don't agree to the EULA, we are not given right to return the said product for a refund? 

I don't see where the EULA says that, actually. The EULA only applies to someone who installs the software. If you don't install it the EULA doesn't apply to you in any way whatsoever, and you have whatever return rights you would have had with no EULA.

[Connect]

But to read the eula you need to open the box and since some games have activation limits, no store will accept a return!

[AlanC9]

koshiee wrote...

so you have to be logged in at all times to play the game?

Online, anyway. You log in once to authenticate, and after that it will probably be automatic. After the game launches you can probably disconnect from the Internet too, if your connection isn't always on. I don't see any reason EA would bother checking more than once per session.

Longtime Bio fans will remember that the NWN1 Premium Modules worked like this too.

[AlanC9]

Connect wrote...

But to read the eula you need to open the box and since some games have activation limits, no store will accept a return!

You need to open the box to read the EULA? Not strictly true, of course -- you and I have both read it already.

But sure, someone who doesn't bother to look up the EULA online will be in the same position as someone who didn't know he wouldn't like the game until he read the manual. I.e., totally screwed.

[Pudenry]

This is really disappointing, I was looking forward to buying this game but with the current DRM there's no way I'll be getting it. When will companies wake up to the fact that DRM only hurts legitimate customers.

[Connect]

That's because we are aware of the TINY link at the bottom of the EA site. But what if someone has no access to the internet he or she would not be able to read it. They should print all 28 pages and attach them to the box!

[Nighteye2]

AlanC9 wrote...

koshiee wrote...
so you have to be logged in at all times to play the game?

Online, anyway. You log in once to authenticate, and after that it will probably be automatic. After the game launches you can probably disconnect from the Internet too, if your connection isn't always on. I don't see any reason EA would bother checking more than once per session.

Longtime Bio fans will remember that the NWN1 Premium Modules worked like this too.

Not neccessarily. They only mention needing online authentication the first time you run the game, and the EULA contains a section on off-line play.

It may well be: activate once, never worry about it again - except when you want to play with DLC enabled, in which case you get the same process as DA:O.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nighteye2 wrote...

It may well be: activate once, never worry about it again - except when you want to play with DLC enabled, in which case you get the same process as DA:O.

DAO's DLC also only required a single authentication.  After that you didn't need to be online to play.

If you were online, you needed to let it authenticate the DLC, but if you weren't online you did not.  And, with DAO, you could actually launch the game offline, thus avoiding authentication, and then once in the game you could log in to your online account and upload game data and whatnot without having to authorise the DLC first (what benefit this would provide I have no idea, but it could be done).

[AlanC9]

I don't see how the scheme for 5 different PCs within 24 hours can work without checking in, though.

[In Exile]

Naitaka wrote...
The point is, we are not the owner of any IP whether it's literature, music or movie in the first place. We own a reproduction of the IP and have very specific rights regarding what we're allowed to do with it under the confine of law.

Yes, entirely, but you're thinking about it at too high a level. To appreciate this, you need to appreciate IP. When people speak about ''owning'' their software, I think they fundamentally misunderstand what it means own something like a game versus something like a car.

So people need to understand why we distinguish between these terms at the theoretical level.

Whether it's easier or harder to copy, display, seek to disable, distribute, perform, publish, modify, create works from from your reproduction of the IP is of no relevence.

It is relevant to the formulation of IP law, and that's where people are confused.

The simple fact is that software IP owners are not satisfy with the protection to the IP owner provided by the law and go an extra step to force the end users to sign a one way contract where the consideration for the us is so dismal as to make the contract complete unfair and unconscionable. If comparison must be made, at least we should be comparing the differet types of IPs to each others; using cars would only further confuses the matter in my opinion.

But that fact is a consequence directly of how information is produced and disseminated. To look at a EULA without looking at the distribution and re-sale potential of software and general dissemination of information is basically impossible. The answer to ''Why EULA'' comes from this feature of information.

If people understand what IP is, we don't need an analogy at all. We can just talk directly about how the product is being handled. But if people do not have the right concept of ownership in mind, the analogy just won't work.

Anyway, I went and took a peek at the wiki and it seems like you're correct on all counts. I'm no lawyer but EA's EULA certainly sounds like an "Adhesion contract" (Thanks! Was wondering what it's called in English all day) to me where they can remove their own obligation and change our obligation whenever they feel like without our conscent.

The issue is not whether an EULA is a contract of adhesion per se, but whether it will stand up as a contract in court. And without someone actually challenging it...

Realistically, it would have to be class action. Just the jurisdiction will be a fight since the EULA technically species a jurisdiction under which claims ought to be filed (but since the legality of the EULA is under dispute in that case...)

Anyway, regular disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, this is conjecture, in no way take this as legal advice, etc. etc.

[Vena_86]

This kind of DRM was used alot and the games where generally trashed by reviewers on amazon etc. which cost the publisher (specially EA and now Ubi*derp*soft) a lot of sales.

When do publishers understand how consumers work? If a pirated game is faster and easier to get and install and lets me play without any restrictions then why should people choose to jump through a collection of burning rings just to even start the freakin game by beeing a legitimate buyer?



What sells is COMFORT and QUALITY. People buy Blizzards games because they know that the games are polished, finished and consistent. And a lot more people would buy other games if there was minimal distractions and less non game related bullcrap to deal with from the point of buying and finishing the game.

The cd check from The Witcher was removed via patch and yet the sales far surpassed expecations and I was one of those buyers. DVD in -> Install -> play

[LaztRezort]

Without making a value judgement on the core issue, I just find something interesting about some of the comments here.

There seems to be a lot of hypothetical, fearful, "what-if" type objections.  I wonder if these people have read the fine print on their credit card agreements, mortgage documents, various government doctrines, etc.  As an example, I can come up with all sorts of fearful hypotheticals that would allow me to (legally) loose my property (as in home/land/real estate) without warning - yet I continue to own property and not worry about it.

I'm sure there are similarities in IP and contract law, as well.  Some things are best not worried about until... well, there is something to worry about.

[Connect]

You're part of the problem. It's exactly because of ignorant people that we have gotten in this mess. If everyone would care and take a stand, they would never ever have the balls to humiliate paying customers like this. Making us beg for revoke tools and activations. Disgusting.

[LaztRezort]

Connect wrote...

You're part of the problem. It's exactly because of ignorant people that we have gotten in this mess. If everyone would care and take a stand, they would never ever have the balls to humiliate paying customers like this. Making us beg for revoke tools and activations. Disgusting.

(assuming you are referring to my post):

But that is a different issue than what I was talking about.  Humiliation and begging (as you put it) would be a direct inconvenience for the customer.  What I was referring to are hypothetical inconveniences that may never (and are arguably unlikely to) come to pass, even though they are technically still a legal encumberance.

[Connect]

It's not a hypothesis. It's reality. When EA first started using this atrocious online authentication method for drm, there was no revoke tool available, so people had to contact the publisher and literally beg for more activations, which the publisher was not obligated to give. It's still a problem if you forget to de-authorize before you format. Not to mention some games had ridiculous limits. *cough* SPORE *cough*

[DragonRageGT]

"Special Notes:

Thank you Ubisoft, this was quite a challenge for us, but nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably horrible for all legit users. We just make their lives easier."

[In Exile]

LaztRezort wrote...
There seems to be a lot of hypothetical, fearful, "what-if" type objections.  I wonder if these people have read the fine print on their credit card agreements, mortgage documents, various government doctrines, etc.  As an example, I can come up with all sorts of fearful hypotheticals that would allow me to (legally) loose my property (as in home/land/real estate) without warning - yet I continue to own property and not worry about it.

I might be allowing my youth and ignorance to show, but I honestly can't think of (for example) any kind of fine-print scenario that might lead one to (for example) have their home repossessed. 

Connect wrote...

You're part of the problem. It's exactly
because of ignorant people that we have gotten in this mess. If everyone
would care and take a stand, they would never ever have the balls to
humiliate paying customers like this. Making us beg for revoke tools and
activations. Disgusting.

Take a stand on what, exactly? I'm sure you have a point somewhere in that diatribe, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in between the foam.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
The issue is not whether an EULA is a contract of adhesion per se, but whether it will stand up as a contract in court. And without someone actually challenging it... 

Realistically, it would have to be class action. Just the jurisdiction will be a fight since the EULA technically species a jurisdiction under which claims ought to be filed (but since the legality of the EULA is under dispute in that case...)

And just to throw a little game theory/econ into the mix, it's difficult to put together such a challenge. Lawyers need to have a reasonable prospect of getting paid to take a case. Contingency fees work fine when the possible payout is large, but what are the provable damages here even if they win?

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
And just to throw a little game theory/econ into the mix, it's difficult to put together such a challenge. Lawyers need to have a reasonable prospect of getting paid to take a case. Contingency fees work fine when the possible payout is large, but what are the provable damages here even if they win?

I'm not entirely sure how you'd certify a class. Broadly speaking you would say it is anyone who suffered some injury due to the EULA... but who was that and what was the injury? Would anyone who purchased DA2 have a case? Would you try and recover the retail value of the game?

We apparently have some precedent though. Another poster mentioned that EA was sued over Spore.

ETA:

That lawsuit was not over the EULA- it was over SecuROM DRM specifically and related to the fact that users effectively did not consent to have SecuROM installed and that a reasonable person could not have expected that software above and beyond Spore would be installed on their computer. It also seems to factually have relied on the disruption that SecuROM caused and the difficulty that existed in removing it.

The issue over activations, despite the tremendous outrage by some, was not actually ever something legally disputed.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 janvier 2011 - 05:37 .

[LaztRezort]

In Exile wrote...
I might be allowing my youth and ignorance to show, but I honestly can't think of (for example) any kind of fine-print scenario that might lead one to (for example) have their home repossessed.

Well, IANAL and all that, but I was thinking along the lines of eminent domain, colored title, prescriptive easements, adverse possession, etc (in the US) which often conflict with peoples' notions of property ownership (not to mention cause unforseen financial burden) - but the details are way too boring and OT for this forum...

So I'll just reiterate my original point:  it seems odd (to me) to worry about something like, for example, a large company suddenly collapsing sometime in the future, thus rendering a game unplayable (ignoring the fact that there would surely be patches/hacks/cracks out there for any reasonably popular game under such a scenario).

Perhaps there is importance in the underlying issues and principles involved, but I'm much more concerned about immediate inconveniences caused by DRM.

[Connect]

It doesn't necessarily require the corporation to collapse. It's enough that the servers crash or go down. Just look at fiasco with Ubi's servers which didn't let people log in. Not to mention that australians couldn't play The Settlers 7 for almost o MONTH. And this is no joke, although it is hard to conceive such a thing.



Meanwhile, the pirates were able to play the 'special' version just fine.



Now, does that seem fair to anyone?

[In Exile]

LaztRezort wrote...
Well, IANAL and all that, but I was thinking along the lines of eminent domain, colored title, prescriptive easements, adverse possession, etc (in the US) which often conflict with peoples' notions of property ownership (not to mention cause unforseen financial burden) - but the details are way too boring and OT for this forum...

Ah, now I understand what you're talking about. Eminent domain is called expropriation in Canada, just in case you were curious (which I'm sure you weren't). But you're basically talking about tin-foil hat moments that are technically possible but absurd. Okay, I understand your point now.

So I'll just reiterate my original point:  it seems odd (to me) to worry about something like, for example, a large company suddenly collapsing sometime in the future, thus rendering a game unplayable (ignoring the fact that there would surely be patches/hacks/cracks out there for any reasonably popular game under such a scenario).

Perhaps there is importance in the underlying issues and principles involved, but I'm much more concerned about immediate inconveniences caused by DRM.

Right. And the only way to know that is to actually see how it could be the case that a game could be restricted to 5 activations per computer per 24 hrs. It could just be a simple log-in required, like (for example) the Cerberus Network for ME2.

[Connect]

The Cerberus Network is optional, the main game is playable fully offline. Anytime. Anywhere. On any number of PCs in any given period of time.

[LaztRezort]

Connect wrote...

It doesn't necessarily require the corporation to collapse. It's enough that the servers crash or go down. Just look at fiasco with Ubi's servers which didn't let people log in. Not to mention that australians couldn't play The Settlers 7 for almost o MONTH. And this is no joke, although it is hard to conceive such a thing.

Meanwhile, the pirates were able to play the 'special' version just fine.

Now, does that seem fair to anyone?

Nope, and I decided against purchase of AC2 for this very reason.

But (and I haven't read through this entire thread, so I may have missed it), what does this have to do with DA2?  Is there reason to suspect that there will be such malfunctioning DRM in DA2, or is it all, again, just hypothetical FUD at this point?

[In Exile]

Connect wrote...

The Cerberus Network is optional, the main game is playable fully offline. Anytime. Anywhere. On any number of PCs in any given period of time.

Yes. But the Cerberus Network is part of the game, i.e. it is not hidden software, and it is painless. I am aware you want to fight the grand idealistic crusade, and good luck with that, but what I care about is how aggravating the DRM will be on a game I know I will purchase. If the answer is "not aggravating" that's all I care about.