193 réponses à ce sujet

[flamingdts]

Jolly Teaparty wrote...

flamingdts wrote...

The point is I paid for the contents of the game, but they added an advertisement to the contents of my game. I'm just going to throw one more analogy out there. Imagine every two pages of your book there is an advertisement on it. I get an advertisement every time I visit my camp.

The reason I can't see it your way is you're trying to portrait the in-game advert as something invasive, when in fact it's one guy who you don't even have to click on. If you were forced into conversation with him every time you entered camp and had to whack escape repeatedly to get away from him then you'd have a point.

I don't see it as invasive, I find it annoying. I may be making assumptions, but it's obvious from the way this is going there will be more advertising NPCs in the near future. That will really annoy me. 

Cheiron the Centaur wrote...

Have you ever read a magazine (or taken a subscription to one) ?

Like I said earlier, it is hard to find an analogy to this, even my analogies are flawed. I PAID for this game and this game only. The magazines come with the advertisements, this game does not. They added an advertisement to my game. 

Modifié par flamingdts, 02 décembre 2009 - 06:08 .

[Dark83]

EULAs are nonbinding in the US and EU. This is why companies go to extremes to avoid having it contested in court. I've got an article written up at home regarding DRM/EULAs back when Spore come out where I can cite all the cases in the US regarding it. With regards to the US, they've gone all the way up to the Supreme Court and has never held up to a legal challenge.



So it's irrelevant, anyways.

[Tosheroon]

 Entitlement? :happy:
Entitlement! 

[B33ker]

Lobsang1979 wrote...

 Entitlement? :happy:
Entitlement! 

ROFL!

Ok that made my afternoon so much better, especially because I heard it in my head in Sandal's voice.

I'm also of the "just click accept and be done with it" group for EULA's on computer games.  There's nothing to be lost and nothing I can't undo later if I so choose.

Granted I'm also not paranoid like some people who walk around with tinfoil hats to block the secret government rays from getting into my head.......

[Jolly Teaparty]

B33ker wrote...

I'm also of the "just click accept and be done with it" group for EULA's on computer games.  There's nothing to be lost and nothing I can't undo later if I so choose.

Same deal here. It's not like I WANT my personal information to be taken by everyone, but this stuff has been going on so long. I bet I've agreed to so much of my personal information being made off with that the stuff isn't even worth a gentle fondle of a penny anymore.

Also

Lobsang1979 wrote...

 Entitlement? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png
Entitlement! ../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png

Bahaha

[Red_warning]

Let me ask this of those of you who do not both to read the terms: what if the terms were changed to add a $5/month fee? Heck, a $1/month fee? Or what if it said, we're revoking all of your DLC rights because we meant to charge more for it and you give us the right to do so and in exchange we'll allow you to continue to use our online services?
.

I'd sue them for fraud if they included such a change in their EULA. I don't know if you could do that in the US, but in my country contracts need to be a little more sofisticated than just pressing an "Accept" button for being truly binding.

[Eshme]

Its fun how many people defend EA, as if they are a charity organization, and has helped them at least once in their life.

[mmmbeerz]

Dark83 -

I think you've confused the issue. Courts have been unwilling to enforce certain onerous provisions including choice of forum or mandatory arbitration. Courts have also been unwilling to enforce EULAs under certain circumstances that usually involve a defect in the contracting process (none of which exist in this case). This is really no different than how courts address contracts -- particularly, consumer contracts -- whether a EULA is involved.



No case on the enforcement of EULA has ever received cert from the SCOTUS. Its possible that the SCOTUS has denied cert. allowing a lower court ruling to stand, but that's different. Some cases have made it up to federal courts of appeal. Again, there is a bit split as to unconscionable clauses and procedural defects (contract of adhesion issue), but none has ruled as to their general enforceability among the circuits.



Stating that EULAs are not enforceable is just wrong. There are plenty of district court cases that say exactly the opposite regarding the more substantive, meat-of-the-deal elements of similar TOS agreements (see, e.g., the UPS case referenced above).

[MachDelta]

Eshme wrote...

Its fun how many people defend EA, as if they are a charity organization, and has helped them at least once in their life.

Equally amusing are how many people seem convinced that EA is a front for Satan's personal army of soul stealing demons.


The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.
Which means that EA is actually a front for Satan's personal army of charitable soul stealing philanthropist demons. 

[mmmbeerz]

Red_warning:



That may be, but I somehow doubt it. People in the US like to think that as well, but it's simply not true. Let me ask, in your country, do you get a piece of paper to sign when you make an online purchase? Have you ever tried to return something beyond the companies return policy date? Does it work? I'm more just curious because I'm dubious.

[Red_warning]

mmmbeerz wrote...

Red_warning:

That may be, but I somehow doubt it. People in the US like to think that as well, but it's simply not true. Let me ask, in your country, do you get a piece of paper to sign when you make an online purchase? Have you ever tried to return something beyond the companies return policy date? Does it work? I'm more just curious because I'm dubious.

A contract can only be binding, according to the laws of my country (Sweden), if all parties partaking in the signing of the contract have full understanding of the consequenses of the contract.

In addition to that, EA can't e.g put in a small text in their EULA saying "your house now belongs to us" for the same reason I can't make somebody sign a contract with "your house now belongs to me" written in font size 1 in the upper left corner, and actually expect that the court would support my claim.

Modifié par Red_warning, 02 décembre 2009 - 06:57 .

[Dark83]

mmmbeerz wrote...

Dark83 -
I think you've confused the issue. Courts have been unwilling to enforce certain onerous provisions including choice of forum or mandatory arbitration. Courts have also been unwilling to enforce EULAs under certain circumstances that usually involve a defect in the contracting process (none of which exist in this case). This is really no different than how courts address contracts -- particularly, consumer contracts -- whether a EULA is involved.

No case on the enforcement of EULA has ever received cert from the SCOTUS. Its possible that the SCOTUS has denied cert. allowing a lower court ruling to stand, but that's different. Some cases have made it up to federal courts of appeal. Again, there is a bit split as to unconscionable clauses and procedural defects (contract of adhesion issue), but none has ruled as to their general enforceability among the circuits.

Stating that EULAs are not enforceable is just wrong. There are plenty of district court cases that say exactly the opposite regarding the more substantive, meat-of-the-deal elements of similar TOS agreements (see, e.g., the UPS case referenced above).

Hm, my ignorant poking led me to believe that SCOTUS ruled click-thrus on the whole weren't binding, from the AutoCAD vs some dude's case. (I clearly lack access to my links and notes at the moment )

[mmmbeerz]

Autodesk v. Verner wasn't a SCOTUS case, it was a federal case. Further, that case has a weird fact scenario. It also addressed the issue of whether one could sell properly acquired disks not whether the EULA itself was enforceable--the weird fact scenario gave rise to the fact that Verner may never have actually agreed to the terms of the EULA (he purchased it from someone else at a garage sale).

[Kralon]

mmmbeerz wrote...

InstantCoffee wrote...

Kralon wrote...

Just thought I'd point out one reason WHY EULAs are non-binding and have absolutely no chance of enforcement in court.

In the case of PC games, and console games for that matter now, you are not allowed to see the EULA until after you buy the game, open it up, install, and then hit play. So now the game is used, and in the case of PC games, non-returnable for refund.

So this means if you decide not to accept the EULA on a PC game, you do not get the game you paid for AND you don't get a refund ( unless you were smart enough to buy it with a credit card and do a charge back ).

In any case, you cannot enforce a "contract" that requires you to purchase the item BEFORE you see the terms of the "contract". Also, pushing a "button" on a computer screen does not give the same weight of authorization/acceptance as an actual signature, since there is no way for the company to 100% say in good faith that YOU hit that "accept" button.

This. Completely true, at least in EU. I don't know about non-EU countries though.

This would NOT be the case in the United States. It's a line of reasoning pushed by computer folks that doesn't hold water when you actually look at the cases.

Furthermore, that's not at all the case with the TOS/EULA that EA imposed. In that case, it appears that it is required for 1) online stuff; 2) to download patches and DLC; and 3) to use the EA provided DLC (I just tested it, it requires you to be logged in lest you be prompted with something about premium content).  As a result, their provision of a "service" means that EACH instance of the service is a NEW offering and the subject matter of a new contract.

It is the case here in the United States. At least here in California where we have a little thing called "full disclosure". You cannot enforce a contract unless the contract was made up and signed BEFORE payment and/or services were rendered.

Modifié par Kralon, 02 décembre 2009 - 07:41 .

[mmmbeerz]

Kralon wrote...

It is the case here in the United States. At least here in California where we have a little thing called "full disclosure". You cannot enforce a contract unless the contract was made up and signed BEFORE payment and/or services were rendered.

Again, this is not the scenario in this case. You have NOT gotten the services. You have to "agree" BEFORE they let use the online portions of the services. There is a very big distinction; one that you could ram a jumbo jet through. So this argument is a loser on this point.

[fkirenicus]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Why are you now talking about bank account details? The information
EA gathers is specified, and it doesn't include bank account details.

Ha ha, you still don't get it, do you? The point is that EA's EULA and software operates the same way malware does. It collects info about you as a user and forwards it to someone who has interest in using it either for commercial - or perhaps more sinister - purposes.

If I hook up my mobile to the PC and Windows creates a registry entry or whatever to recognize it so that next time I don't need to "install" it again, why the hell does EA retrieve that information? It has no bearing on the game, or my relation to EA as a customer that has purchased a license to use their software. And yes, they say so in the EULA. So, basically, if I want to play DA:O, I not only have to pay for it (and of course I should!), I must also accept that they retrieve my IMEI number if Windows has it. I must also accept that they retrieve info such as that I use OpenOffice instead of commercial tools from e.g. MicroSoft ("Oooooh, have we a potential software pirate here?! He prefers free tools rather than pay for them!").

You do get my point here? I have purchased a license to use their software - I have NOT purchased a license for them to retrieve whatever info they want about me or my system. When they state that they retrieve my mobile and mobile ID, I really wonder "what do they need that for"?

But then again, perhaps you are one of those who gladly installs software from "respected" anti-virus companies that later turns out to be malware that actually stops you from being able to update either the OS or install real anti-virus software, or encrypts your files so that you cannot use them until you have paid the extortion fee required to decrypt them?

Right, a MAC address and bank account details are so similar.

No, but IMEI numbers, mobile phone numbers, contact lists, licenses for other software etc. IS.

The point here is that the EULA isn't clear on what exactly they retrieve - nor why they "need" it.
Now, if EA can tell me that they do NOT retrieve info from my registry or my system or about me other than that they actually NEED - or what I say is OK that they retrieve - there really isn't a problem!

Modifié par fkirenicus, 02 décembre 2009 - 09:06 .

[fkirenicus]

0zzy0sb wrote...

Damn your craking me up. Do you realy believe what you are saying? you saying your IP/zipcode/hardware/software info is just as private as your bank account info? Mabe its because my english is not so good and im missing something in your post.   

The point is that I as perfectly normal customer that have purchased a license to play DA:O accept that I cannot make profit out of their intellectual or actual property, and that they need to retrieve certain info about my system in order to help me if my game crashes, for example. I also understand that I have to pay for extra content they create for the game, to make the experience even better.

I have however NOT purchased (or at least that was never my intention!) a license that allows EA to retrieve information about me or my system or peripheral devices that have no bearing on the game for which I have purchased said license.

The solution is perfectly simple, though: Install DA:O, do not purchase any (new) DLC.
Fortunately the patches do not require the daupdater service (as far as I understand at least - patches are downloadable files that can be used in a "non-DLC" way), so bugfixes for the core game still can be done. Let's see how long it lasts... Nah, I can't believe they're THAT evil, seriously.

It's kind of funny (or perhaps ironic is a better word) actually - they say that in order to purchase DLC you need an internet connection and create an account at EA (perfectly understandable). They say nothing about that it's not enough to PAY FOR and download the DLC - you have to accept that they install software that retrieve information about you as well, and you have to stay online because the DLC requires authentication at (ir)regular intervals.
Now, in my dictionary "downloadable" does not equal "online".

Their EULA should in fact state:
"Downloading and using this software requires you to accept that EA installs spyware on your computer, because we want to know what type of games you play, your internet surfing habits and your mobile ID, so that we can sell that info to 3rd party vendors and earn even more money."

That way they would at least be playing with open cards!

Modifié par fkirenicus, 03 décembre 2009 - 02:32 .

[Kralon]

mmmbeerz wrote...

Kralon wrote...

It is the case here in the United States. At least here in California where we have a little thing called "full disclosure". You cannot enforce a contract unless the contract was made up and signed BEFORE payment and/or services were rendered.

Again, this is not the scenario in this case. You have NOT gotten the services. You have to "agree" BEFORE they let use the online portions of the services. There is a very big distinction; one that you could ram a jumbo jet through. So this argument is a loser on this point.

And you need to rethink it. You're right, i haven't gotten the service until I click "agree". But they HAVE gotten my money BEFORE I'm allowed to "agree" or "disagree". 

Modifié par Kralon, 03 décembre 2009 - 02:39 .