Curse

Diomedes · Aug 02, 2005, 06:23 PM // 18:23

Quote:

While A.Net will continue to ban accounts and no one will stop them, in fact I agree to most but not all of the bannings, they can not claim they have the right because of a EULA. In fact if a botter who was banned decided to sue A.Net and had the money to do so he would have the law on his side.

IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that the law would not dictate that area net must let them use their servers for free. And yes, I have read your articles and many others on the subject. There's a difference between having a copy of a cd or book and using areanet's servers and bandwidth (which I'm fairly certain they have the right to deny anyone for any reason).

-Diomedes

Meeker · Aug 02, 2005, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

Meeker...you are forgetting that ArenaNet owns the servers...they CAN dictate what you are allowed to use THEIR servers for...the Law would not be on ArenaNets side in that particular case.

though I agree...EULAs are fluff and have no legal precedence or contractual backing.

This is true to an extent however when you buy the game it is under the knowledge that you have access to the servers. If they remove the access to the servers then it would not even take a brilliant lawyer to get a lemon law applied and at a MINIMUM get the money back you paid for the game. And possibly get more.

However you would have to have a lot of money to waste just to prove a point.

I currently work for a law firm that specializes in corporate law so I feel have a decent take on this.

Damon Windwalker · Aug 02, 2005, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diomedes

There's a difference between having a copy of a cd or book and using areanet's servers and bandwidth (which I'm fairly certain they have the right to deny anyone for any reason).

-Diomedes

Now that would be an interesting case.

I'm not sure I would completel agree that there is no implied right to use, considerin that the software works ONLY when associated to an ANET server, and ANET has made the statement that they will never charge a fee. That clearly establishes an implied contract for services - and could negate the "anyone for any reason" arguement.

Aniewiel · Aug 02, 2005, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT

I truly wish Arenanet Had Forums on-site. They would have more sound moderation than goes on here.

What type of moderation in this thread are you looking for? There has been no name calling and no really horrendously ugly language. Some 'spanks', several of which were launched by you, to be sure but nothing awful. What is it you would like to see?

Quote:

Mark my words, my own posts will be singled out here, as always, but the flamers will keep on a goin.

Truly. I read every post. Is someone's disagreement with your point a 'flame'? I didn't see anyone flaming you to the degree you are insinuating. I will read through again but I have seen far worse. And, in MY limited opinion, you give as good as you get.

Quote:

I think I will logout and not return. Good luck lasherdragon. This place needs it.

*sigh*

I admit defeat. You people are hopeless.

That's too bad, SOT, truly. I am sorry to hear that. I hope that you're not running off because everyone doesn't agree with you. There is ample room for discussion on this topic because, and this is the case in every EULA out there, there is a gigantic gray area. The gaming companies need to band together and begin pursuing legal recourse against people who violate EULAs. Until they do, the waters will remain muddied legally.

On moral and ethical ground, I agree with you 100%.

Don't go. We need and want all viewpoints here.

Spartan2 · Aug 02, 2005, 06:34 PM // 18:34

EULAs would hold up more in court if customers were asked to agree to an Pre-purchase Agreement as they exited the store. Most gamers know what these EULAs and ToC will be stating and agree to them, but what about the grandparents or parents that are just trying to please their (grand)children? A lot of this "But I didn't know what I was doing was wrong" crap would end the second electronic stores had a huge record of EULA behind the counter.

Employee: "Hmm... Maximum Carnage Fighter XLV? This game is rated Mature for maximum amounts of carnage, can I see your ID? Ok, you're 17, you can purchase this, but, you need to take a look over the EULA before you may leave."

Customer: "Why?"

Employee: "Well, because the game has online features and the game creators want it to be very clear that no cussing, spitting, or hitting below the belt is allowed online. They want to make it very clear that they can end your ability to access their servers if you abuse this agreement."

Customer: "Oh, alright. That sounds fair, thanks!"

It would also be great if they could take out all of that innane legalese and just make it an easy to read document spanning only one to two pages. I know they are trying to cover themselves from being sued, but if you can get your customers to be aware you mean business in a very easy to understand way, then no one is at fault but those that choose to push the limit.

Tactical-Dillusions · Aug 02, 2005, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Does it allow me to use my disk as a coffee mat?

Algren Cole · Aug 02, 2005, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactical-Dillusions

Does it allow me to use my disk as a coffee mat?

7.72A-C: The purchaser of this product assumes the role of ownership of the physical materials used to deliver the product, while ArenaNet maintains proprietary ownership of the servers, the code, and the means with which to deliver content, it is ultimately the end-users right to use above reference physical material as a coaster.

Phades · Aug 02, 2005, 06:41 PM // 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meeker

I am sorry but you are 100% completely wrong. There have been several recent court rulings that have basically stated that an EULA means nothing.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11...ixes_software/

"Specifically, the ruling decrees that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, consumers should have the same rights they'd enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book. They can't make copies, but they can resell what they own."

As other people have mentioned there are also ruling in courts that cover the ground that you can read an EULA until you have already bought the game at which point you can not longer return it and therefore an EULA is not legally binding.

While A.Net will continue to ban accounts and no one will stop them, in fact I agree to most but not all of the bannings, they can not claim they have the right because of a EULA. In fact if a botter who was banned decided to sue A.Net and had the money to do so he would have the law on his side.

Thank you, come again.

GW being an online game service, like other services, has the right to refuse said service to anyone. Amount of time using said service is not able to be measured due to the nature of the service as your game experience may vary. That would be akin to being kicked off of a private host server for a FPS game and trying to sue the host of the hardware for right to that piece of equipment. There is also the consideration of the intellectual property, which is the actual contents of the game, versus the casing and disc that the game is shipped in and encoded upon. Yeah, you own the disc, you dont own the contents inside said disc. Some countries have laws specifically allowing the use of the content of any software in any manner, but warez have other issues within this country.

Mimi Miyagi · Aug 02, 2005, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan2

It would also be great if they could take out all of that innane legalese and just make it an easy to read document spanning only one to two pages. I know they are trying to cover themselves from being sued, but if you can get your customers to be aware you mean business in a very easy to understand way, then no one is at fault but those that choose to push the limit.

Lawyers need to feed their families too, ya know. Lawyers can't help themselves, I think they even have conversations with their wives in that legalese tone.

And working in a law firm doesn't make anyone qualified to interpet US laws. That would be like saying "I'm a janitor at a hospital, thus I should be able to perform brain surgery". Even law firms can't interpet US laws except when it's their particular field of specialization. A family doctor can't perform open heart surgery, but can tell if you have the flu - at least I hope so. A law firm that deals mainly in divorce and property damage claims isn't suited to battling corporate legal fights. In other words, just like anything else, all lawyers (or firms) are not created equal.

Warskull · Aug 03, 2005, 02:50 AM // 02:50

The reason the EULA works is simple, if you were to take Arena.net to court over it the most you would get out of it was your $50 back. The cost of taking them to court would be far greater and the only way it could be done would be through a class action lawsuit.

The EULA is an agreement to license the software to you and depending on the court and instance it can be enforced (Microsoft has pulled tricks with their EULAs being non-transferable before.) The truth is most EULAs are overly restrictive however legally the best point of attack is the shrink wrap arguement. How the EULA is not available until the shrink wrap is open and that you cannot return the product for a refund even though the EULA states you should be able to if you do not agree with it.

Orochim4ru · Aug 03, 2005, 03:03 AM // 03:03

Quote:

"Specifically, the ruling decrees that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, consumers should have the same rights they'd enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book. They can't make copies, but they can resell what they own."

This just means that licenses can be sold aftermarket, not that EULAs mean nothing.

Anarkii · Aug 03, 2005, 03:27 AM // 03:27

EULA : Pretty words meant to scare the gamers, in the hope that they wont do anything that the Company didnt intend them to.

Legally Enforceable? Nay.

SOT · Aug 03, 2005, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aniewiel

What type of moderation in this thread are you looking for? There has been no name calling and no really horrendously ugly language. Some 'spanks', several of which were launched by you, to be sure but nothing awful. What is it you would like to see?

Truly. I read every post. Is someone's disagreement with your point a 'flame'? I didn't see anyone flaming you to the degree you are insinuating. I will read through again but I have seen far worse. And, in MY limited opinion, you give as good as you get.

That's too bad, SOT, truly. I am sorry to hear that. I hope that you're not running off because everyone doesn't agree with you. There is ample room for discussion on this topic because, and this is the case in every EULA out there, there is a gigantic gray area. The gaming companies need to band together and begin pursuing legal recourse against people who violate EULAs. Until they do, the waters will remain muddied legally.

On moral and ethical ground, I agree with you 100%.

Don't go. We need and want all viewpoints here.

I worded that erroneously. I meant I was gonna log out. The discussion had decayed to meaninglessness.

As for the person saying this thread is worthless, well you posted in here, so what does that make you?

I have been reading the responses since I skeedattaled. Some of them made more sense to me, and actually fit the damn topic, and not me as a person. As for the morons, oh well. Nothing is new anymore.

I think I should perhaps just post in threads and not start them for a while, as it is always the same cluster of 5 or 6 who feel the need to be important...to themselves or something.

Anyhoo, carry on, or not, I care not. I am done with this thread.

cheers

Yen-lo-wang · Aug 03, 2005, 06:02 AM // 06:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJG

IANAL, but as I understand it EULAs have yet to be tested in court, so there is every chance that they are just useless bits of unenforceable legalese.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkii

EULA : Pretty words meant to scare the gamers, in the hope that they wont do anything that the Company didnt intend them to.

Legally Enforceable? Nay.

No offense/flaming intended, but you're both wrong. Ever since the government started their mostly BS case with Microsoft (that's a whole different barrel of fish and ONLY BROUGHT UP AS A TIME REFERECE!), the government and other legal-type industries have started watching the gaming and music industries much more carefully... and as a result, EULA's have gotten much longer, much more detailed, and much more specific. These things are handcrafted by the lawyers of the various firms that represent these companies, and you can bet your pants that they can and WILL enforce the EULAs in a court of law as they see fit.

Anarkii · Aug 03, 2005, 06:36 AM // 06:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yen-lo-wang

EULA's have gotten much longer, much more detailed, and much more specific. These things are handcrafted by the lawyers of the various firms that represent these companies, and you can bet your pants that they can and WILL enforce the EULAs in a court of law as they see fit.

1) They WONT enforce the EULA. They'll just ban the account at most. The legal fee of a lawsuit is too much.

2) In case of a lawsuit, the consumer is likely to win. Why? Because EULAs are so strongly worded that theres always an easy way to circumvent it.
Piracy? Backup!
Ebaying? Selling/Buying a service/time, NOT items.
etc

SJG · Aug 03, 2005, 12:57 PM // 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yen-lo-wang

These things are handcrafted by the lawyers of the various firms that represent these companies, and you can bet your pants that they can and WILL enforce the EULAs in a court of law as they see fit.

Oh, they could try to enforce them, but until such a time as someone successfully does it in a court of law (I could be mistaken but I do not think this has actually happened) then they are untested and what I said is entirely correct. Until something has been tested in court it is very difficult to say whether the various clauses of a contract are enforceable.

Just because a lawyer writes something doesn't make it enforceable. In almost every tenancy agreement I have ever signed there has been a number of clauses that are unenforceable, that is to say people have been to court over it and it was found, for one reason or another, to be not legally binding.

It is all just posturing from lawyers, they know they mean nothing but they hope that you don't.

Damon Windwalker · Aug 03, 2005, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT

As for the person saying this thread is worthless, well you posted in here, so what does that make you?

Ahh yes -a textbook use of the "I know you are, but what am I?" arguement...

What did it make me when I posted that?
Bored.

Algren Cole · Aug 03, 2005, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yen-lo-wang

No offense/flaming intended, but you're both wrong. Ever since the government started their mostly BS case with Microsoft (that's a whole different barrel of fish and ONLY BROUGHT UP AS A TIME REFERECE!), the government and other legal-type industries have started watching the gaming and music industries much more carefully... and as a result, EULA's have gotten much longer, much more detailed, and much more specific. These things are handcrafted by the lawyers of the various firms that represent these companies, and you can bet your pants that they can and WILL enforce the EULAs in a court of law as they see fit.

I can take a bag of shit and fill it to double its normal capacity...does that make it anything more than an overstuffed bag of shit?

Saerden · Aug 03, 2005, 03:14 PM // 15:14

EULAs may be legally binding contracts in country A. EULAs may be totally illegal because they force you to surrender basic human rights (like private property; "you pay for it, you own it", freedom to resell your private property) in country B. If country A has more stealth bombers then country B, EULAs may become enforcable in country B one day, too.

Or as the people in this thread who actually have a clue have said: its a huge grey area.

/moral soapbox - personal opinion and NOT A FACT: EULAS are not only illegal but immoral. They force a mixture between communism and dictatorship. You dont own everything, just pay for the right to use it. There is also no way a car dealer can prevent you from making profit with "his hard work" aka the car. Somehow, software companies think they can.
/end NOT A FACT

PieXags · Aug 03, 2005, 04:07 PM // 16:07

Nobody ever reads the EULA/terms of service anyway. Honestly how many of you go through the several pages of crap before you install the game? Anyone?

And as far as I'm concerned I sure as HELL own my copy of the game, don't even try to say that I don't.

I OWN my copy of the game. When I BOUGHT the game, I wasn't able to read the EULA that says what I owned and what I didn't, I PURCHASED this game from a store, it's mine, plain and simple. I can do whatever the HELL I want with my disk, I can tear up the booklet, I can snap the CD in half. The game is mine.

It would be more correct to say that every person owns his or her copy of the game, but Anet owns the rights to the account online (they can ban it) me thinks.

When I picked up the game from the shelf, brought it to the desk, payed my money, and brought it home. I didn't pick up a bag of "rights" to play the game online, I payed for what I picked up off the shelf, the game. I own my copy of the game, they own the rights to it, really.