3140 réponses à ce sujet

[Bostur]

billy the squid wrote...

Another rather murky area is EA's ability to change the contract whenever they like, given the stipulations for time in the EULA, technically they can as it is their contract, but you accepted to use the product based on the previous contract, not this one. So, the contractual relationship ends, or there is renegotiation, but there won't be as it is a contract of adhesion. So, we are left with accept the contract or you have no license to use the product, it works out better for EA in that case than the consumer.

Thats a lose/lose situation for the consumer, and in itself enough of a reason not enter into a contract like that in the first place.

There are probably plenty of EULA's that work like that. I see it as a problem with software licenses in general. The consumer buys the right to use a piece of software, without guarantees that the license will remain active for a specified time period.

The difference with EA is that they seem more intent on making use of the limitations of a software license, illustrating the pitfalls for the consumer.

[Mister Mida]

Bostur wrote...

Thats a lose/lose situation for the consumer, and in itself enough of a reason not enter into a contract like that in the first place.

There are probably plenty of EULA's that work like that. I see it as a problem with software licenses in general. The consumer buys the right to use a piece of software, without guarantees that the license will remain active for a specified time period.

The difference with EA is that they seem more intent on making use of the limitations of a software license, illustrating the pitfalls for the consumer.

I think governments should take a look at the whole EULA thing. Despite the fact that they're not legal in plenty cases, companies still hold on to them. They know that plenty of consumers will get blinded by the big wall of text full of legal and other vague crap. And like you said, companies will exploit that. They should present their license agreements more consumer friendly.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 03 novembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[cocla]

Well looks like thats it. No more Bioware games for me, till EA wisens up and ditches its crappy Origin system monitoring scheme. I will still get ME3, as I will e getting it for the xbox, but after that no more EA games, PC or xbox.

I have boycotted EA before, when they at the height of their SecureURom and other DRM blunders, and the only thing that made me come back was Biowares purchase. I hated the fact that EA had gotten its hands on my favorite game developer, but I still bought Bioware games because it seemed that EA had smartened up and didnt have TOO horrible a DRM system.

Until EA stops forcing us to use their horrible Origin service, with system monitoring spyware, for games we purchased IN A PHYSICAL STORE I will not buy another EA game. I will miss Bioware, but I stick by my principles. I will still check the forums every so often, hoping for a sign EA will get a clue and I can play Bioware games again. Hopefully EA realises how stupid it is being before their next game(s) come out.

[LilyasAvalon]

I'm just saying, if people don't read the fine print, it's also kinda their fault.

But I also still do not agree with what Origin is doing, that is a huge breach of privacy and even if it's in the contract, the fact EA continuelly denies it makes it even more shakey.

But, if they wanna put the nails in their coffin, it's their choice I guess. Common sense alone can show you that this'll just make people resort to more and more cracked and plagarised copies of games, BF3 has already been cracked to be Origin free after all.

[Killjoy Cutter]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Metalrocks wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

So what is the FULL list of what exactly makes Origins so Big Bad Wolf scary? I've only been on the Origins site and my security freaks out whenever I do because it keeps trying to access paypal files or something, so it's kept me from using the actual program, so I don't actually fully know what it is that makes Origins so bad.

Not saying it isn't, just in the dark here.

in short:
it access your personal files on your pc. files which have nothing to do with EA or games. plus, they take the files and give them to third parties around the world without you knowing about it. and EA still claims that it doesnt do such thing. but when you read the agreement, it even sais so that origin is in short, a spyware.
you find tones of stuff on youtube (mainly in german) and read some of the pages here in this forum.

... That's not without you knowing about it then, that's them stating they'll do it and people being idiots and not reading the fine print, so technically, it's: EA  - 1 | Consumers - 0

Still, that IS a breach of privacy, but legally, it sounds like you've agreed to that breach of privacy.

EULAs are not legal contracts, they're legally worthless in fact.  They bind neither the publisher nor the user.

Additionally, any contract provision which violates the law is void, in most western countries. 

So if the law in your country or state says you have certain privacy rights, you cannot sign those rights away. 

[Metalrocks]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I'm just saying, if people don't read the fine print, it's also kinda their fault.

true, very true. but usually you dont expect a gameing company to scan your stuff on your pc, so that you can play your games.
usually when you signe an agreement of a game, its mainly that you dont copy the game, or anything which is copy right related.

[Shepard the Leper]

Mister Mida wrote...

I think governments should take a look at the whole EULA thing. Despite the fact that they're not legal in plenty cases, companies still hold on to them. They know that plenty of consumers will get blinded by the big wall of text full of legal and other vague crap. And like you said, companies will exploit that. They should present their license agreements more consumer friendly.

It's not the task of governments to look at the EULA - which only represents EA's opinion but has no legal value whatsoever. It's up to the judges to determine which parts of EA's opinion are within the law (and which parts are not).

I don't care or read EA's EULA because it's worthless. I'm well aware of my rights as a consumer and there's nothing EA can do to change that, unless they put themselves up for election, gain a majority in parlement so they can pass a bill supporting their EULA (nonsense). I am free to do whatever I want to with EA's products as long as I don't violate the law (of my country). If EA doesn't like that, they can file a complaint and/or take things to court. But the court uses a different EULA (aka the LAW). Or EA can decide not to publish their products in countries where the law doesn't match EA's views on the matter.

[Mister Mida]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

It's not the task of governments to look at the EULA - which only represents EA's opinion but has no legal value whatsoever. It's up to the judges to determine which parts of EA's opinion are within the law (and which parts are not).

I don't care or read EA's EULA because it's worthless. I'm well aware of my rights as a consumer and there's nothing EA can do to change that, unless they put themselves up for election, gain a majority in parlement so they can pass a bill supporting their EULA (nonsense). I am free to do whatever I want to with EA's products as long as I don't violate the law (of my country). If EA doesn't like that, they can file a complaint and/or take things to court. But the court uses a different EULA (aka the LAW). Or EA can decide not to publish their products in countries where the law doesn't match EA's views on the matter.

Point taken.

[billy the squid]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

It's not the task of governments to look at the EULA - which only represents EA's opinion but has no legal value whatsoever. It's up to the judges to determine which parts of EA's opinion are within the law (and which parts are not).

I don't care or read EA's EULA because it's worthless. I'm well aware of my rights as a consumer and there's nothing EA can do to change that, unless they put themselves up for election, gain a majority in parlement so they can pass a bill supporting their EULA (nonsense). I am free to do whatever I want to with EA's products as long as I don't violate the law (of my country). If EA doesn't like that, they can file a complaint and/or take things to court. But the court uses a different EULA (aka the LAW). Or EA can decide not to publish their products in countries where the law doesn't match EA's views on the matter.

Not quite. the EULA is a legally binding contract, it is not opinion, opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The clauses and stipulation are what EA decides and they will govern how the product can be used. If you accept such terms, due to the nature of it being a contract of adhesion, then failure to abide by the EULA is breach of contract with the associated legal remedies. So no you are not free to do what ever you want with EA's products, unless you like breach of contract remedies, which aren't nice.

What EA can not do is use the EULA to circumvent statute and case law, ie: prevent legal remedies, limits of warranties beyond what is enshrined in statute law, prevent legal action due to gross negligence, privacy laws etc. That is not something that EA can remove using a contract.

Modifié par billy the squid, 03 novembre 2011 - 01:52 .

[DownyTif]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Someone get Epicbattleaxe or Sessler's soapbox on the horn. We aught to get the word out on this.

MAKE SOME NOISE PEOPLE!

Yeah, everybody should work to make this public. I contacted 3 TV channels, 3 gaming magazines, 1 popular radio, started 3 threads on other forums and 66k people on Facebook (in a privacy related group) plus all my friends.

People must stop assuming that somebody else will do it. And even if we are many to tip the same place, this will just make more of an impact.

PS: and to be sure I'm fair, I do not give my opinion when I tip. I just exposed the facts based on all the links gathered in this thread. Then the people can make their own opinion on the subject and report what they want.

Modifié par DownyTif, 03 novembre 2011 - 02:00 .

[DownyTif]

Oh and for people saying "That's it, I'm not buying it" or "I just cancelled my pre-order", please do what somebody else suggested: e-mail EA and Bioware telling them exactly that and why.

[Killjoy Cutter]

billy the squid wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

It's not the task of governments to look at the EULA - which only represents EA's opinion but has no legal value whatsoever. It's up to the judges to determine which parts of EA's opinion are within the law (and which parts are not).

I don't care or read EA's EULA because it's worthless. I'm well aware of my rights as a consumer and there's nothing EA can do to change that, unless they put themselves up for election, gain a majority in parlement so they can pass a bill supporting their EULA (nonsense). I am free to do whatever I want to with EA's products as long as I don't violate the law (of my country). If EA doesn't like that, they can file a complaint and/or take things to court. But the court uses a different EULA (aka the LAW). Or EA can decide not to publish their products in countries where the law doesn't match EA's views on the matter.

Not quite. the EULA is a legally binding contract, it is not opinion, opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The clauses and stipulation are what EA decides and they will govern how the product can be used. If you accept such terms, due to the nature of it being a contract of adhesion, then failure to abide by the EULA is breach of contract with the associated legal remedies. So no you are not free to do what ever you want with EA's products, unless you like breach of contract remedies, which aren't nice.

What EA can not do is use the EULA to circumvent statute and case law, ie: prevent legal remedies, limits of warranties beyond what is enshrined in statute law, prevent legal action due to gross negligence, privacy laws etc. That is not something that EA can remove using a contract.

Please cite court cases in which EULAs have been regarded and enforced by the court as legally binding contracts.  

[billy the squid]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

It's not the task of governments to look at the EULA - which only represents EA's opinion but has no legal value whatsoever. It's up to the judges to determine which parts of EA's opinion are within the law (and which parts are not).

I don't care or read EA's EULA because it's worthless. I'm well aware of my rights as a consumer and there's nothing EA can do to change that, unless they put themselves up for election, gain a majority in parlement so they can pass a bill supporting their EULA (nonsense). I am free to do whatever I want to with EA's products as long as I don't violate the law (of my country). If EA doesn't like that, they can file a complaint and/or take things to court. But the court uses a different EULA (aka the LAW). Or EA can decide not to publish their products in countries where the law doesn't match EA's views on the matter.

Not quite. the EULA is a legally binding contract, it is not opinion, opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The clauses and stipulation are what EA decides and they will govern how the product can be used. If you accept such terms, due to the nature of it being a contract of adhesion, then failure to abide by the EULA is breach of contract with the associated legal remedies. So no you are not free to do what ever you want with EA's products, unless you like breach of contract remedies, which aren't nice.

What EA can not do is use the EULA to circumvent statute and case law, ie: prevent legal remedies, limits of warranties beyond what is enshrined in statute law, prevent legal action due to gross negligence, privacy laws etc. That is not something that EA can remove using a contract.

Please cite court cases in which EULAs have been regarded and enforced by the court as legally binding contracts.  

Microsoft v Harmony Computers

The terms of the EULA constitute a legally binding contract, no license from the licensor in the EULA to use the product leads to default breach of copyright law.

Whether the terms and contract itself is legal is another matter entirely and is based on the terms of the EULA in question. For all intents an purposes there is a legal contract between the two parties when one purchased the item and accepted the EULA, but that has no bearing on if the terms are unfair terms under statute, breaches of privacy laws or breaches of any other legislation enacted by Parliament or Case law established by the Judiciary.

If the EULA is found to breach these then the contract or the terms of the contract is void, it does not detract from the fact that EULAs are legal contracts in principle, but the actual content and legality of that content is judged on a case by case basis.

Modifié par billy the squid, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:01 .

[Metalrocks]

DownyTif wrote...

Oh and for people saying "That's it, I'm not buying it" or "I just cancelled my pre-order", please do what somebody else suggested: e-mail EA and Bioware telling them exactly that and why.

im pretty sure bioware is fully aware of the situation. afteral, they do read the forum. but sure, it never harms to send an email.
but the complains about origin shoud go directly to EA. afteral, they are the once who made this spyware.

[MarauderESP]

they have changed the spanish Origin EULA to mention that origin is not a spyware and bla bla bla..... sure..... but the program itself is still scaning trough places it shouldnt, so they can change eula all they want but the program is still scanning the hdd ....oh dear... so chris how much time do u need to tell us if origin will be requiered to play the SP campaing of ME3 ?, MP i really dont care of MP and more if it will need that thing to use it.....

if anyone is interested this is the link to the uela in spanish Origin EULA Spanish  <_<

Modifié par MarauderESP, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[Shepard the Leper]

billy the squid wrote...

Not quite. the EULA is a legally binding contract, it is not opinion, opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The clauses and stipulation are what EA decides and they will govern how the product can be used. If you accept such terms, due to the nature of it being a contract of adhesion, then failure to abide by the EULA is breach of contract with the associated legal remedies. So no you are not free to do what ever you want with EA's products, unless you like breach of contract remedies, which aren't nice.

What EA can not do is use the EULA to circumvent statute and case law, ie: prevent legal remedies, limits of warranties beyond what is enshrined in statute law, prevent legal action due to gross negligence, privacy laws etc. That is not something that EA can remove using a contract.

Contracts are only binding when the law says so, which, again, can only be decided by courts - not others (like you, me and/or EA).

There's been an interesting case in Germany a few years ago about Armin Meiwes, who achieved international notoriety for killing and eating a voluntary victim whom he had found via the Internet. First, he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years in prison. This led to a debate over whether Meiwes could be convicted at all, given that his victim had voluntarily and knowingly participated in the act. After a retrail, Meiwes was convicted of murder because the courts ordered the agreement between Meiwes and his victim illegal - thus not binding (and it was thrown into the trashbin). Meiwes was sentenced to life imprisonment.

EA's EULA only represents EA's view on how they believe their products ought to be used. It's within their rights to make such a contract, but it's within our rights to ignore (parts of) it (eventhough we've "signed" it). The only way to find out who's right, is by going to court which will determine which parts are legally binding and which parts are not.

Oh, and another interesting case is 'Jailbreaking'. Tim Wu a professor at Columbia Law School, argued that jailbreaking is "legal, ethical, and just plain fun." Wu cited an explicit exemption issued by the Libary of Congress in 2006 for personal unlocking, which notes that locks "are used by wireless carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to switch to other carriers, a business decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests protected by copyright" and thus do not implicate the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

This is basically the same thing EA tries to accomplish through Origin - they are using drastic means which have nothing to do with protecting EA's (copy)rights and thus also don't implicate the DMCA. It's very unlikely EA can build a case against anyone who "jailbreaks" Origin though it would certainly be an interesting case. Unfortunately, I can't volunteer coz I don't live in the US, but anyone that does will have my blessing

Modifié par Shepard the Leper, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:07 .

[Johnsen1972]

BF3 Sales on PC:
Not even 500.000 pieces?
http://gamrreview.vg.../battlefield-3/
Since EA stated that BF3 sold 5 million times, does that mean it sold 4.5 million times for consoles?
PC doesnt seem to be the lead platform anymore, Thanks Origin!

Please Bioware, dont bundle ME3 with Origin! 

Modifié par Johnsen1972, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:08 .

[SalsaDMA]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I'm just saying, if people don't read the fine print, it's also kinda their fault.

Good luck prooving in a court why Joebob, who is under the age of legal consent, should be held acountable to anything written in "fine print".

I'd really like to see how they are going to defend against data harvesting systems where people that are technically minors installed the software to play their game.

[shepskisaac]

Johnsen1972 wrote...

BF3 Sales on PC:
Not even 500.000 pieces?
http://gamrreview.vg.../battlefield-3/
Since EA stated that BF3 sold 5 million times, does that mean it sold 4.5 million times for consoles?
PC doesnt seem to be the lead platform anymore, Thanks Origin!

Please Bioware, dont bundle ME3 with Origin! 

VGChartz is a good source but not for sales that ain't at least month old or confirmed by a publisher, and EA already said they sold 5 million copies of BF3 in the first week so VGChartz is wrong here.

And before anyone says "I don't trust EA numbers!", just remember they can't exactly lie about them since it would be a lie to their shareholders as well. EA's a public company.

[scyme]

ME 3 with obligatory Origin = no deal. I'd rather leave my Shepards to rot in the savegame directory

[Johnsen1972]

IsaacShep wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

BF3 Sales on PC:
Not even 500.000 pieces?
http://gamrreview.vg.../battlefield-3/
Since EA stated that BF3 sold 5 million times, does that mean it sold 4.5 million times for consoles?
PC doesnt seem to be the lead platform anymore, Thanks Origin!

Please Bioware, dont bundle ME3 with Origin! 

VGChartz is a good source but not for sales that ain't at least month old or confirmed by a publisher, and EA already said they sold 5 million copies of BF3 in the first week so VGChartz is wrong here.

And before anyone says "I don't trust EA numbers!", just remember they can't exactly lie about them since it would be a lie to their shareholders as well. EA's a public company.

Did you even read my post? I said that EA stated that they sold BF3 FIVE million times!

[Metalrocks]

damn. did EA removed the "contact us" link or what??? i cant find anything to contact them by email. when i google for it, it tells me pretty much the same. i should click on this http://support.ea.com/ and on the left side of the screen you should see a "contact us" link. i see nothing.

[SalsaDMA]

IsaacShep wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

BF3 Sales on PC:
Not even 500.000 pieces?
http://gamrreview.vg.../battlefield-3/
Since EA stated that BF3 sold 5 million times, does that mean it sold 4.5 million times for consoles?
PC doesnt seem to be the lead platform anymore, Thanks Origin!

Please Bioware, dont bundle ME3 with Origin! 

VGChartz is a good source but not for sales that ain't at least month old or confirmed by a publisher, and EA already said they sold 5 million copies of BF3 in the first week so VGChartz is wrong here.

And before anyone says "I don't trust EA numbers!", just remember they can't exactly lie about them since it would be a lie to their shareholders as well. EA's a public company.

I saw some numbers another place (can't remember where, though.)

They stated xbox sales was around 3 million, ps sales as around 1.5 million or so, and pc sales at around 2-300k. It seems to tie up to about 5 million total, so wouldn't seem to be that much off.

[Drinking Shepard]

Edit: Post removed.

Origin is here and it removed my post.

Modifié par Drinking Shepard, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[lastpatriot]

scyme wrote...

ME 3 with obligatory Origin = no deal. I'd rather leave my Shepards to rot in the savegame directory

Sadly enough, I would have to agree with you.  Though ME:2 is probably my favorite game of all time, the privacy concers over Origin are not something I am willing to simply overlook.

I suppose, like many of you, if this is truely a requirement then I will not conclude the trilogy.  As it stands, ME:3 is the only game in the last few years that I have not pre-ordered.