3140 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

billy the squid wrote...

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.

One case of company vs company... and I'll have to read up on it to see what the exact wording was.  The most likely answer is that a large company dealing with many installs is responsible for what went on inside the company. 

In the case of individuals, the EULA hasn't been binding beyond threats from the publisher due to the absolute lack of proof that the person being held responsible ever agreed to the "contract". Anyone in the household, or a child, or a third party, could have clicked on the "I AGREE" button.

[SalsaDMA]

Edit: Removed the quote.

Let's try NOT to get this thread locked by posting stuff that are obvious lockdown material, eh?

edit: given the actions bioware have taken so far and most notablyactions they haven't taken, I'd go so far as to asume that it would be in Biowares interest as well if we ket the debate 'clean' and still of a level that was able to make EA aware of the horrible situation they are putting divisions like Bioware in when forcing Origin on their customers.

Let's not throw away the token of approval they CAN give us while they are tied on hands and legs by contracts on what they are allowed to say and/or do regarding issues that are directly counter to the stated interests of EA.

In short, play by the rules, guys and girls.

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:53 .

[Metalrocks]

well, i have written an email to bioware regarding origin. lets hope that our complains and concerns will reach them. especially EA.

[Chris Priestly]

Metalrocks wrote...

well, i have written an email to bioware regarding origin. lets hope that our complains and concerns will reach them. especially EA.

Well, I've already said we are looking at this. I've already posted here, so we're obviously looking at it. I am teh guy who'll get your email, so we'll still be looking at it. It doesn't hurt to send it twice, but it is a tad redundant. Still, if it makes you feel better, there is no problem in sending emails as well as voicing your opinion here.

[DownyTif]

Metalrocks wrote...

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.

Yeah, I'm also sure that Bioware is fully aware. Actually, I like to think (at least I hope) that the reason why there is no public announcement yet is because Bioware doesn't want ME3 to be Origin bound (for a lot of reasons, not just our) and that they are arguing/making their case with EA about it.

So if it's the case, sending them an e-mail too kind of give them ammunitions. I may be extremely wrong in my assumptions though hehe.

EDIT: ^^Chris answered before I completed my post :happy:

Modifié par DownyTif, 03 novembre 2011 - 04:06 .

[Metalrocks]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Metalrocks wrote...

well, i have written an email to bioware regarding origin. lets hope that our complains and concerns will reach them. especially EA.

Well, I've already said we are looking at this. I've already posted here, so we're obviously looking at it. I am teh guy who'll get your email, so we'll still be looking at it. It doesn't hurt to send it twice, but it is a tad redundant. Still, if it makes you feel better, there is no problem in sending emails as well as voicing your opinion here.

thank you for your understnading about our concerns and why we wrote the emails. i dint write any offencive stuff. just what i think of it and even some possibilities. 

[billy the squid]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

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.

One case of company vs company... and I'll have to read up on it to see what the exact wording was.  The most likely answer is that a large company dealing with many installs is responsible for what went on inside the company. 

In the case of individuals, the EULA hasn't been binding beyond threats from the publisher due to the absolute lack of proof that the person being held responsible ever agreed to the "contract". Anyone in the household, or a child, or a third party, could have clicked on the "I AGREE" button.

There are other cases, but I didn't want to produce a long list, just the larger multinational companies hold more weight.

As to individuals Microsoft have prosecuted individuals for making modding the console. The EULA allows one to use the console in without falling foul of the DMCA and copyright laws which apply in default if the user is not licensed by the licensor to use the console in such a manner. The modding according to Microsoft breached the terms of the EULA and as such the copyright laws applied as the contract is breached and allows Microsoft legal remedy for breach of contract or under the Copyright legislation.

It does not mean that all EULA are enforcable. That depends on the stipulations of the contract itself and how it acts in regard to different national laws. All that is required for a legal contract at the most basic level, at least in English Contract law is.

Offer, Acceptance, an intention to create a legal relation  between the parties and consideration. That is it, that is a legal contract in the technical sense and it would be seen as such. It does not mean that the terms of the contract would be enforceable, that will depend on statutes and case law. As to the issue of third parties, there exists contracts with third parties legislation to cover such issues. Minors may not be liable, but their Guardians ad litem are likely to be, paticularly if it was they who bought the product, the contract is between them and the Company.

[Johnsen1972]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

So you can presume that PC sales are quite bad because of Origin?

[Furtled]

Thoughtful post from a British solicitor ref: Origin and the EULA here, he makes some excellent points not only about the legality of EULAs and why companies use them, but also on how companies can do better on communicating how these things apply to customers. Most important though (to me anyway) is his point that Origin should be optional.

Personally while I'm not overjoyed at the idea of software that pokes around my system with gay abandon I agree with the blog that EA are not going to run off with my data to sell it to the highest bidder, my main issue with this is having to install yet another piece of bloatware I don't want (and will never use) on my PC.

I buy retail editions of games, partly because I'm old and curmudgeonly, but mainly because I want to control what goes onto my PC and only keep what I want to use; I don't want to use Origin, I'll likely never want to use it and I don't appreciate being forced to install something utterly unnecessary on my system simply to play a game, no matter how much I love the series or the developer.

Origin does not improve my player experience, Origin will not make my Shepard faster or more godlike etc. it adds nothing to my enjoyment of the game and will simply take up hardrive space I can find far better uses for, also as mentioned before I'm old and stubborn and don't respond well to having things forced on me/being blackmailed into using software - which is effectively what it boils down to if it turns out Origin is required to play ME3.

I could ramble on but I need to chase those darn kids off my lawn again, hope you guys manage to sort something out.

Modifié par Furtled, 05 novembre 2011 - 06:06 .

[MassStorm]

EA you should just put some special bonus items in the Origin version of ME3 and you will see that people will be more likely to buy the Digital Version

Modifié par MassStorm, 03 novembre 2011 - 04:32 .

[Tarisch]

But give use the DLCs to the normal CE and (other DLCs) without the need to install Origins, please.

[Chris Priestly]

MassStorm wrote...

EA you should just put some special bonus items in the Origin version of ME3 and you will see that people will be more likely to buy the Digital Version

We did?

[SalsaDMA]

Johnsen1972 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

So you can presume that PC sales are quite bad because of Origin?

In all honesty, the sales could be affected by a host of things, so making any presumptions would be silly.

You can state that it could certainly have an effect, especially in germany
Which makes me wonder, how does the returned copies figure in those numbers?

[MassStorm]

Chris Priestly wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

EA you should just put some special bonus items in the Origin version of ME3 and you will see that people will be more likely to buy the Digital Version

We did?

Not yet for what i know;  just a friendly suggestion to reward those who pre-ordered the game there and never whined about it

Modifié par MassStorm, 03 novembre 2011 - 04:54 .

[shepskisaac]

Johnsen1972 wrote...

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

But then you used VGChartz numbers for PC version specific. How can their PC numbers be correct if their overall number (4.2 million, 800k less than the official word from EA) is not?

[billy the squid]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

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

The cannibalism case is criminal law, not civil, so issues of contract laws will not apply. Contracts are legal in the sense if they contain or can be shown to have been entered into under the principles of Offer, Acceptance Intention to create a Legal Relationship and Consideration. That is a legal contract, it is binding in the sense that there is legal recourse, ie: court hearings. If those are not present then there is no contract at all, and no possible legal recourse.

Perhaps I was being unclear on the meaning of binding. The EULA is part of the existing contract when one purchased the game, the above criteria should have been fulfilled upon purchase, that is legal, the actual terms of the contract may or may not be enforcable: Ie: Is the EULA in breach of Statute or Case Law, but the actual existence of the contract allows for legal recourse for breach of contract, Unfair contract terms Act, Breach of Data Protection Act etc. 

I cannot seek to declare the terms of the EULA void under uncertainty principles in case law, Unfair Contract Terms Acts in statute etc. if there is not a legally binding contract, which has bound the parties together. I do not know if  the professor's thoughts on such acts are reflected in actual legislation or case law, if they are then his position may have some bearing on the contractual terms area.

As to jailbreaking Origin, so long as you do not tamper or manipulate the code you are technically not in breach of Copyright as you are not breaching the terms of the EULA, if they are enforcable. Ie: Sandbox, the Origin system still runs as intended, no manipulation to the code, no tampering, no cracking, it is simply able to scan what ever is in the Sandbox. So unless EA tries to proceed on the basis that one has somehow limited the program, I'm not sure how EA would proceed on such a basis, technically there is no breach of the EULA and no breach of contract nor of copyright legislation which applies in default, yet it still can't scan outside the box.

Modifié par billy the squid, 03 novembre 2011 - 04:55 .

[SalsaDMA]

MassStorm wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

EA you should just put some special bonus items in the Origin version of ME3 and you will see that people will be more likely to buy the Digital Version

We did?

Not yet for what i know;  just a friendly suggestion to reward those who pre-ordered the game there and never whined about it

So raising legitimate concerns over matters that are illegal in some contries is something you classify as "whining" ?

I seriously hope for your sake that life treats you well and never throws a stumble in your way, cause it sounds like you would have a hard time to adapt.

[SalsaDMA]

IsaacShep wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

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

But then you used VGChartz numbers for PC version specific. How can their PC numbers be correct if their overall number (4.2 million, 800k less than the official word from EA) is not?

5 million is total, consoles included.

EA's statement didn't specify a platform as far as I am aware.

[Nathander Von Eric]

Chris,

Thanks for the reminder that you and others are "looking at this."

It's very much appreciated, especially in a time when you are just a few months away from release and most likely working long enough hours as it is.

No, I'm not being sarcastic. (Just in case it looks that way )

I look forward to an answer/official statement. Even if it's an answer or statement that I don't like at least you all care enough to put in the effort.

[cocla]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Well, I've already said we are looking at this. I've already posted here, so we're obviously looking at it. I am teh guy who'll get your email, so we'll still be looking at it. It doesn't hurt to send it twice, but it is a tad redundant. Still, if it makes you feel better, there is no problem in sending emails as well as voicing your opinion here.

Do you know what email us Canadians can use to send EA our concerns/disatisfaction?  I have looked and found them for the US, Europe, and other countrys but nothing for Canada.

[Shadesofsiknas]

Nathander Von Eric wrote...



I look forward to an answer/official statement. Even if it's an answer or statement that I don't like at least you all care enough to put in the effort.

I wouldnt hold your breathe waiting for this.

[Johnsen1972]

SalsaDMA wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

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

But then you used VGChartz numbers for PC version specific. How can their PC numbers be correct if their overall number (4.2 million, 800k less than the official word from EA) is not?

5 million is total, consoles included.

EA's statement didn't specify a platform as far as I am aware.

This. That means the PC version sold much less then the console version. Considering that the PC should be the lead version with superior graphics and additional MP features, you can quite assume that this might be Origins fault.

[Killjoy Cutter]

So we're back to EULAs being powerless, despite what the big media companies want us to think.

[SalsaDMA]

Johnsen1972 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

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

But then you used VGChartz numbers for PC version specific. How can their PC numbers be correct if their overall number (4.2 million, 800k less than the official word from EA) is not?

5 million is total, consoles included.

EA's statement didn't specify a platform as far as I am aware.

This. That means the PC version sold much less then the console version. Considering that the PC should be the lead version with superior graphics and additional MP features, you can quite assume that this might be Origins fault.

actually they swapped focus mid development to the consoles to meet deadlines.

but we are getting off topic now. I'm sure you can google further info on that detail if you want to

[MarauderESP]

MassStorm wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

EA you should just put some special bonus items in the Origin version of ME3 and you will see that people will be more likely to buy the Digital Version

We did?

Not yet for what i know;  just a friendly suggestion to reward those who pre-ordered the game there and never whined about it

oh dear..........

ok put all the extra stuff u want on the digital edition , ill always preffer a hard copy and ill never install a spy... origin on my pc (steam or any other plattaform)