It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY (80 posts)(80 posts)
(80 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
wpegg: sajber, do you realise what you've done!

I ... agree ... with GameRager. This is just paranoia. It's some legal thing that they need to put in. There's a small bit of worry that they state they may store your IP address etc. even while you're offline, but it's not for these games. They will have 1 EULA that fits all products. These things are expensive to produce, you don't customise them per game. It's a catch all that they would have little chance of enforcing if they ever wanted to. This is nothing to worry about.
AFAIK, no EULA has ever stood up in court, so even if we do agree to it and they try to pull something shady based on it, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on. There's less than nothing to worry about.
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
GameRager: You actually found a way to SIGN your EULAs??? 0.o
Ye, with a mouseclick. :(
Posted June 02, 2011
low rated
avatar
GameRager: You actually found a way to SIGN your EULAs??? 0.o
avatar
Lexor: Ye, with a mouseclick. :(
I meant with an actual pen. ;)
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
GameRager: I meant with an actual pen. ;)
Yes, I know, but mouse click agreement is a kind of signature/acceptation.
Post edited June 02, 2011 by Lexor
Posted June 02, 2011
low rated
avatar
GameRager: I meant with an actual pen. ;)
avatar
Lexor: Yes, I know, but mouse click agreement is a kind of signature/acceptation.
Just be like me and feign forgetting how the english language works whenever I see an EULA....
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
GameRager: I meant with an actual pen. ;)
avatar
Lexor: Yes, I know, but mouse click agreement is a kind of signature/acceptation.
Not from a legal standpoint; that's the main reason most EULA's fail the courtroom test.
Posted June 02, 2011
low rated
avatar
Lexor: Yes, I know, but mouse click agreement is a kind of signature/acceptation.
avatar
cogadh: Not from a legal standpoint; that's the main reason most EULA's fail the courtroom test.
That plus the fact most game's EULAs aren't readable before attempting install.
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
wpegg: I ... agree ... with GameRager.
So...do...I. My god.
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
Lexor: Yes, I know, but mouse click agreement is a kind of signature/acceptation.
avatar
cogadh: Not from a legal standpoint; that's the main reason most EULA's fail the courtroom test.
Actually I think the main failures have been that:

You haven't actually seen the EULA before you bought the product.

You made the sales contract with the store (in this case GOG) not the company that published it, so you cannot be bound by a contract to a third party.

These are both getting a bit blurry now, and I think someone will attempt another strike soon, but I sincerely doubt that it will happen over a $5.99 GOG.
Posted June 02, 2011
low rated
avatar
wpegg: I ... agree ... with GameRager.
avatar
Al1: So...do...I. My god.
Well even those considered to be the fooliest of fools can be right on occasion, no? :P
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
wpegg: sajber, do you realise what you've done!

I ... agree ... with GameRager. This is just paranoia. It's some legal thing that they need to put in. There's a small bit of worry that they state they may store your IP address etc. even while you're offline, but it's not for these games. They will have 1 EULA that fits all products. These things are expensive to produce, you don't customise them per game. It's a catch all that they would have little chance of enforcing if they ever wanted to. This is nothing to worry about.
avatar
cogadh: AFAIK, no EULA has ever stood up in court, so even if we do agree to it and they try to pull something shady based on it, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on. There's less than nothing to worry about.
Baloney.

Vernor v. Autodesk
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer
Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.

All held on appeal that a grant of license via a EULA does not invoke the first sale doctrine.

The EULA is the only document that gives you any right to use the software at all. If the EULA is invalid, you have nothing.
Post edited June 02, 2011 by cjrgreen
Posted June 02, 2011
low rated
avatar
cogadh: Not from a legal standpoint; that's the main reason most EULA's fail the courtroom test.
avatar
wpegg: Actually I think the main failures have been that:

You haven't actually seen the EULA before you bought the product.

You made the sales contract with the store (in this case GOG) not the company that published it, so you cannot be bound by a contract to a third party.

These are both getting a bit blurry now, and I think someone will attempt another strike soon, but I sincerely doubt that it will happen over a $5.99 GOG.
I mentioned the first one already. ;)
avatar
cogadh: AFAIK, no EULA has ever stood up in court, so even if we do agree to it and they try to pull something shady based on it, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on. There's less than nothing to worry about.
avatar
cjrgreen: Baloney.

Vernor v. Autodesk
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer
Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.

All held on appeal that a grant of license via a EULA does not invoke the first sale doctrine.
You just like to shoot people down, right? I noticed that about some of your posts.....even with those most EULAs are considered unenofrceable in the U.S.
Post edited June 02, 2011 by GameRager
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
wpegg: Actually I think the main failures have been that:

You haven't actually seen the EULA before you bought the product.

You made the sales contract with the store (in this case GOG) not the company that published it, so you cannot be bound by a contract to a third party.

These are both getting a bit blurry now, and I think someone will attempt another strike soon, but I sincerely doubt that it will happen over a $5.99 GOG.
avatar
GameRager: I mentioned the first one already. ;)
avatar
cjrgreen: Baloney.

Vernor v. Autodesk
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer
Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.

All held on appeal that a grant of license via a EULA does not invoke the first sale doctrine.
avatar
GameRager: You just like to shoot people down, right? I noticed that about some of your posts.....even with those most EULAs are considered unenofrceable in the U.S.
No, I do not like people spreading falsehoods.

EULAs are generally valid, and no assertion to the contrary is worth the bits used to post it. The notable case of Step Saver v. Wyse, where an appeals court held that a EULA was invalid, is an isolated exception.
Post edited June 02, 2011 by cjrgreen
Posted June 02, 2011
low rated
avatar
cjrgreen: No, I do not like people spreading falsehoods.

EULAs are generally valid, and no assertion to the contrary is worth the bits used to post it. Cite me a case to the contrary, where it was established in an appellate court that a EULA was not valid.
And what? You're like the hero that swoops in and saves the day with 100% accurate information?

:\

Read EULAs, for starters...they say within that if a part/etc of the EULA is found to be unenforceable only the remainder will remain in effect in those jurisdictions.
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
cogadh: AFAIK, no EULA has ever stood up in court, so even if we do agree to it and they try to pull something shady based on it, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on. There's less than nothing to worry about.
avatar
cjrgreen: Baloney.

Vernor v. Autodesk
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer
Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.

All held on appeal that a grant of license via a EULA does not invoke the first sale doctrine.

The EULA is the only document that gives you any right to use the software at all. If the EULA is invalid, you have nothing.
I've read of a couple of cases where EULAs have been upheld, however these are not them. As far as I can tell these are related to copyright infringement. You can have copyright without an EULA as far as I know (though an EULA helps make it clear, I could be wrong here)

However here we are discussing the more exceptional terms. I think most people accept that software is released under a license of some sort, and that you can't rip it off.

Interesing/aumsing/depressing post on the subject:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/31/lineage_ii_eula_defeat/
Post edited June 02, 2011 by wpegg
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY (80 posts)(80 posts)
(80 posts)