Prime Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by razorace mmm, but the rights given to the user/company are obvious. Just like for a book. When it is vague, a simple paragraph would be sufficent; Not the monster documents that EULAs are. In addition, EULAs have yet to really stick in court AND noone reads them anything. If the company has a liscensing issue (in my opinion) a simple liscense.txt would be fine. Unfortunately, it is not just like a book. Since a copyright prevents you from making a copy, in the case of software, this would prevent you from installing it (copying to harddrive) or using it (copying into RAM). This is one way that EULAs give you more freedom than you would otherwise have. It can be argued that like any legal document, it can be worded better in less space. But I don't think that is the real issue here. As for EULAs being a legally binding document, as far as software companies are concerned, they certainly are. And as far as the legal system is concerned, they are starting to be taken more seriously as well. M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp. & Softworks Data Systems In any event, they can certainly lead to legal proceedings The fact the not everyone reads them is irrelevent. That is their decision. But as soon as they click "Agree", they have entered into the contract. Whether the creaters of that EULA choose to enforce it is up to them. Otherwise, companies could go back to having everyone physically sign a contract before allowing peole to use a piece of software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar Ha ha.. here we go again Indeed. I think it is a good discussion though. You guys bring up good points Originally posted by Luc Solar You can ask whether or not EULA's are needed. A totally different question is: Are they binding? Yes they are. And more and more the courts recognize this. It has requirements of a legal agreement. That being said, like the OJ case, what legal powers you have on your side can sway things a bit Originally posted by Luc Solar Software companies need EULA's. But do they need 'em in COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software, like games? They got copyright. Copyright protects them from people copying their work. Copyright does cover the majority, and the EULA covers all the bases. But it most cases it is not just "their work". Games incorporate many different aspects, like models, music, sound effects, and so on. Much of this comes from third parties. Say, for example, a Matrix game uses a song by Rage Against the Machine. Rage isn't going to sell the song to the developer, but they might lisence it to them. Because of this,developer won't be able to sell the game to you outright, because they don't own every aspect of the game. EULAs get around this problem. Originally posted by Luc Solar What copyright does not protect (and this is a bummer for companies) is the structure, ideas etc. etc. of the program. If somehow you get the info about the underlying ideas of a program, you can freely (copyright-wise) use that info to create an exactly similar, identical looking piece of software and start selling it.... as long as the code you use *looks* different. This is the big problem with copyright. It doesn't safeguard what's most important. Otherwise you get things like this. This case had many people in the game industry worried, because Hasbro was trying to prevent anyone from making clones of Asteroids, Missile Command, and so on. That could lead to them being able to say "you can't make a game that has a ship flying around destroying asteroids". How many games would that eliminate? Originally posted by Luc Solar We also have "fair use". You can't use an EULA to strip away the rights end users have according to the "fair use" doctrine. IMHO it is not necessary to use EULA's since reverse engineering is not allowed (dunno about USA) and fair use offers the end user a broader set of rights than 99% of EULA's. (Note that I'm only talking about off-the-shelf software bought by consumers) The world is definitely at a crossroads when it comes to fair use and the digital age. But I have to disagree with your last statement. The fair use exemption to copyright law was created to allow things like commentary, parody, reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the creator. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own ideas, but block your expression of other people's. Intent and damage to commercial value of the work are big considerations. Are you reproducing an article from a newspaper because you need to to criticise the quality of it, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want readers to have to register at the paper's web site? The first is fair use, the others much less so. Going with traditional fair use guidelines, the EULA again gives you more freedom. From the link: Rule 1: Are You Just Copying or Creating Something New? Rule 2: Don't Compete With the Source You're Copying From Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the Quantity I think you'll agree that much of what goes on with software is not covered by fair use. In any event, EULAs can strip away the rights end users have. This is because by agreeing to the contract, you may be waving certain rights. Originally posted by Luc Solar We pay for a perpetual *right to use* the product up front for 70+ years. A normal game is used for..what, 3 months tops? We pay for all this time and even though we end the continuous legal relationship ("lease") we get no refunds from the 69+ years that we payed for but didn't use. This is an example of where copyright law has not caught up with the digital age. Obviously, waiting 70 years for the software to enter the public domain is silly. That being said, you don't get money back for a textbook that has gone out of date. Why should you for software? Is there any case where you get money back for something that hasn't entered the public domain? I'm not quite sure what you mean? Originally posted by Luc Solar What exactly is the difference to a "sale"? The difference is that this way the copyright holder can make an EULA where he writes down everything he possibly can imagine benefiting him. You're not allowed to disparage Microsoft or it's affiliates. No benchmarks. No cheering the wrong NHL team. No doing this or that or else! "Or else what?" >> Or else...OR ELSE YOU'LL LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE AND MUST DESTROY IT ALL AND YOU WON'T BE GETTING YOUR MONEY BACK EVEN THOUGH YOU PAID FOR 70+ YEARS, that's what. "but you can't tell me which NHL team I'm supposed to like, can you??" >> Errm... legally no, but if you don't do as I say YOU'LL LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE AND MUST DESTROY IT IMMEDIATELY. So you gonna do as I say or should we go to court? The NHL reference is a bit much, but I know what your saying. Under the Copyright Act you have the right to make an archival copy of a computer program you lawfully own a copy of, but you must destroy the archival copy when you no longer own the original copy of the program. Although the underlying copyright law sets forth the default position, this can be affected by a contract between the vendor and the user, the EULA. By clicking "Agree", a user shows their agreement to the contract. I do not know if there are specific limits of what can be put in the EULA, but in any case, no one is forcing you to agree to it. You can not enter into the contract if you do not agree to it. Originally posted by Luc Solar Is a shrink wrap EULA binding? No. Not as such. You can not accept an agreement without knowing what it is. That's the most basic requirement. Shrink wrap is BS. You need to at least have an *opportunity* to check what you are bying, the terms of the contract, first. (btw - I know some states in the US have accepted shrink wraps) As far as I can remember most games for you to either accept or reject the agreement before installing. This makes absolutely certain that the user has agreed to the terms of use. I don't remember owning a game where there wasn't a EULA either as above or in the manual or on a seperate card. It says that if you install the software you agree to the terms. You do not, of course, have to agree. No one is pulling the wool over people's eyes. Originally posted by Luc Solar I urge you all to search Lucasart's (Or any site of any game ever) site and find me even a single tiny print somewhere where it says: Oh yeah, just because it sais "buy JO" it doesn't mean that we would actually *sell* it.. we're just LICENSING stuff. Although it would be nice to have a copy of the EULA on their site, it is much more important that it is included in the software package. But what do you feel you are limited from doing by not buying it outright? I mean, you can play the game, right? Originally posted by Luc Solar How about putting the EULA's terms up on the net? Would that be an impossible feat? Huh, would it, huh!? ( ) This is software. If you're bying a right to use, you sure as hell must *first* have a chance to see what the right to use is. The scope of the right to use = the product. It's absurd that the EULA can not be seen anywhere, not even on the net. Talk about informing the consumer... But you do have a chance to see it. It should be included with every software package. Beyond that, many companies do post their EULA on the web. For example: Adobe Acrobat Reader Macromedia Freehand Sophos Anti-Virus Originally posted by Luc Solar "I need to use this program on my comp and laptop 'cause I travel a lot, but I don't know if that's allowed. So I just need to try my luck in picking the one program that has an EULA inside it that sais I can use it on my laptop. Sure hope I'll get it right... otherwise I'll have to buy TWO licenses!" It most likely isn't allowed. You may have to buy two licenses if you want to use the software on two machines. This is the same as if you want two books or two DVDs, you have to buy to copies. And again, many EULAs do allow for copies on multiple machines. This gives you more freedom than you would under normal copyright. In the end, if you find the agreement isn't what you want, you can take it back for a full refund. Man, I hope I'm giving you guys something to think about and you don't think I'm a complete shill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Yes they are. And more and more the courts recognize this. It has requirements of a legal agreement. EULA's are agreements and binding as such. That's not the problem, but the way EULA's are *presented* is. Copyright does cover the majority, and the EULA covers all the bases. But it most cases it is not just "their work". Games incorporate many different aspects, like models, music, sound effects, and so on. Much of this comes from third parties. Good point and perhaps the best argument for not ditching EULA's altogether in COTS software. This case had many people in the game industry worried, because Hasbro was trying to prevent anyone from making clones of Asteroids, Missile Command, and so on. That could lead to them being able to say "you can't make a game that has a ship flying around destroying asteroids" And that's pretty much how things will be if this whole "patenting software"-craze gets out of hand. I'm worried. (BTW -try doing a search on "patent + absurd"...I bet you'll get quite a few hits ) I'm not a big fan of the whole the fact that *using* software means copying it. Technically that is true. You use it = you copy it. But that's just dumb. That's nothing but a freak coincidence about the use of software and should have no legal relevance whatsoever. And this is why I claim that technically 100% of EULA's give you more rights than you'd otherwise have, but in reality 99% don't. Was that unclear enough? I also find it interesting that all these new copy-protection systems do not concern themselves at all with the "copying" people are doing constantly while running/using software. It should make the legislator THINK for a change too. Fair use.. my personal view is clear. If I buy something I can use it any way I see fit. If I buy a music CD, I can listen to it in the car or in my room. I can take a gazillion copies of it as long as I don't use them simultaneously or sell them or allow other's to use them. Same applies, or should apply, to software. It should not make any difference whether or not I use my program on a laptop or comp. Fair use allows me to make use of the product flexibly without hurting the copyright owner in any way. Dekompiling? Sure. Why not? As long as I don't *use* the information I got from the source code in any way to harm the one with the copyright. It can be argued that EULA's can strip us of any and all rights. Doing this by adding a shrinkwrap EULA written in a foreign language inside the installing procedure of a program is hardly the way agreements are supposed to be presented. There are numerous doctrines about draconian terms and so forth.. the key element is INFORMING the consumer. Some say that on top of that there must be good reasons for using any term that differs from the rules of dispositive law, otherwise they aren't enforceable. That being said, you don't get money back for a textbook that has gone out of date. Why should you for software? Is there any case where you get money back for something that hasn't entered the public domain? I'm not quite sure what you mean? When licensing software an (perpetual) agreement is made for the next 70+ years. It's not an sale, it's a 70+ year contractual relationship...just like if you would pay your rent 10 years up front. If you decide that you want to call it quits, you usually get something back in return for the extra time you payed for. That's what I meant. I do not know if there are specific limits of what can be put in the EULA, but in any case, no one is forcing you to agree to it. You can not enter into the contract if you do not agree to it. Apparently there are no limits. And if there's an dispute about something the licensor can immediately revoke the agreement and the licensee will have to go to court to get back the 50$ he just lost. (No lawyer will even pick up the phone for 50$) Another interesting point: can you honestly say "take it or leave it" even if we're talking about, say... Windows? Word? The answer is not so obvious anymore. Freedom of choice becomes fictive. As far as I can remember most games for you to either accept or reject the agreement before installing. This makes absolutely certain that the user has agreed to the terms of use. I don't remember owning a game where there wasn't a EULA either as above or in the manual or on a seperate card. It says that if you install the software you agree to the terms. You do not, of course, have to agree. No one is pulling the wool over people's eyes. I have not problem with that...well...I do, but not as much as I have with shrink wraps. The whole point with a shrink wrap agreement is that you accept by opening the package. That's just absurd. The shrink wrap *clause* is BS & void, not the agreement, not the whole EULA. But what do you feel you are limited from doing by not buying it outright? I mean, you can play the game, right? Well, the funny thing is that no-one reads those things. No-one knows what they say and everyone uses the software exactly as they see fit. In reality the EULA means nothing. And no software company can monitor my use of their software. If I want to disparage Microsoft by using their Word to write a really, really long profanity-filled essay about B. Gates, I'll surely do that. If my comp brakes down, I'll surely install my windows and everything else too back on the new computer I'll get. My problem is with software companies *trying* to impose all sorts of ludicrous restraints on the fair use of software I bought. They need to clean up their act. 1) information about licensing in general. If you don't *sell* games, you shouldn't lure people into *buying* them. You offer LICENSES. Be honest about it. 2) information about the license in question BEFORE the deal is made. Vendors don't usually take returns. If the package is opened it's copied. And saying that is not cynical, but realistic. 3) ditch the shrink wrap. Opening a package means nothing if the buyer has not knowledge of what he is agreeing to. There is no way around this. 4) ...arg...it's 1 AM. I need to get up in 5 hours. Oh crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Uh, I'm with Luc Solar on this. It's not the EULA that's binding, it's the fair use laws. The problem is that in the land of lawyers, the current system acts like your rights aren't "binding" unless you state them all the time (like the Maranda Rights). Meaning companies feel that they can't keep thier rights without using EULAs (written by expensive lawyers) to state them all the time. (instead of a simple "Dude, don't violate our rights" text file) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Again, you guys are making excellent points, and raising issues that certainly have been brought up before. Originally posted by Luc Solar I'm not a big fan of the whole the fact that *using* software means copying it. Technically that is true. You use it = you copy it. But that's just dumb. That's nothing but a freak coincidence about the use of software and should have no legal relevance whatsoever. And this is why I claim that technically 100% of EULA's give you more rights than you'd otherwise have, but in reality 99% don't. Was that unclear enough? I also find it interesting that all these new copy-protection systems do not concern themselves at all with the "copying" people are doing constantly while running/using software. It should make the legislator THINK for a change too. The biggest problem, and probably the main reason why EULAs came into being, is that copyright (and other forms of protection) law has not caught up to the digital age. Rules that made sense for traditional forms of media and authored works do not work well because of the fundamental differences in the nature of digital works. To make the problem worse, updating these laws is painfully slow. Companies couldn't wait for the courts to change things. Because of this they write their own contracts with the user that take into account some of these differences. Originally posted by Luc Solar Fair use.. my personal view is clear. If I buy something I can use it any way I see fit. If I buy a music CD, I can listen to it in the car or in my room. I can take a gazillion copies of it as long as I don't use them simultaneously or sell them or allow other's to use them. Same applies, or should apply, to software. It should not make any difference whether or not I use my program on a laptop or comp. Fair use allows me to make use of the product flexibly without hurting the copyright owner in any way. It is the same more or less as software. You can make a gazzilion copies of the software as long as you use it on the one computer at a time. Like a CD, you can move it from computer to another computer. What you can't do is put it on multiple computers at the same time. Why? Because that means that the software company has lost a potential sale, and thus is not covered under fair use law as it currently stands. Originally posted by Luc Solar It can be argued that EULA's can strip us of any and all rights. Doing this by adding a shrinkwrap EULA written in a foreign language inside the installing procedure of a program is hardly the way agreements are supposed to be presented. There are numerous doctrines about draconian terms and so forth.. the key element is INFORMING the consumer. Some say that on top of that there must be good reasons for using any term that differs from the rules of dispositive law, otherwise they aren't enforceable. By foriegn language I assume you mean legal terms The problem is that like any legal contract, the wording is just as important as the meaning. If the EULA is not precisely expressed in legal terms, someone will find a way around it. Unfortunely, this is at the expense of the layman. Originally posted by Luc Solar Another interesting point: can you honestly say "take it or leave it" even if we're talking about, say... Windows? Word? The answer is not so obvious anymore. Freedom of choice becomes fictive. Ultimately, you do have a choice. That's why there he been such a fuss over Microsoft's practices. If they have complete control, they can force people to agree to anything they want. It hasn't gotten there yet, but the US government has had to step in on multiple occasions. But like anything, there may be something that you want bad enough that you will accept the terms. I don't necessarily like all the things I had to sign to get our house, but we wanted it badly enough that we agreed to it. Originally posted by Luc Solar I have not problem with that...well...I do, but not as much as I have with shrink wraps. The whole point with a shrink wrap agreement is that you accept by opening the package. That's just absurd. The shrink wrap *clause* is BS & void, not the agreement, not the whole EULA. I agree that this could be handled better, and why I personnally think the best way to present EULAs is to put it as part of the seal of the packaging. That way no one will miss it, and breaking the seal signifies your agreement. But I can see why companies want some sort of protection. People can easily open the package, make a copy, and then take the package back for a refund. I don't think you'll begrudge companies for try to prevent themselves from being ripped off. Originally posted by Luc Solar Well, the funny thing is that no-one reads those things. No-one knows what they say and everyone uses the software exactly as they see fit. In reality the EULA means nothing. And no software company can monitor my use of their software. Because people don't read the EULA doesn't make it any less of a contract. If I didn't read all the contracts for my house, yet I offically agree to them, I am stuck with the consequences. That is my fault, not the company's. People have to be responsible for the agreements they entered into. Also, the fact that it is hard to enforce also doesn't mean that it is any less of an agreement. It is easy (at least in Canada) to get weed, but it is still just as illegal, even if it is hard to police. Now, companies aren't so concerned with you doing this in your own home. It is companies buying one copy of software and using it a thousand times throughout the company that software houses are trying to protect against. So to cover that problem, they have to cover all the bases in the contract. Otherwise there are loopholes that could be exploited. Originally posted by Luc Solar It should not make any difference whether or not I use my program on a laptop or comp. Fair use allows me to make use of the product flexibly without hurting the copyright owner in any way. But the above makes a huge difference, and is not covered under fair use law, because you are hurting the copyright owner. Here the common guidelines I found pertaining to fair use: 1.The purpose and nature of the use. If the copy is used for teaching at a non-profit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology" and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion. 2.The nature of the copyrighted work. For example, an article from a newspaper would be considered differently than a workbook made for instruction. With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel's CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as a equivalent chunks of digital data. 3.The nature and substantiality of the material used. In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use. 4.The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work. In general, a work that supplants the normal market is considered an infringement, but a work does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement. Number 3 and 4 is where you are no longer under protection from fair use. Number 3 is broken because you are copying the entire package when you have copies on two computers. Number 4 is broken because you are affecting the companies market and causing them to lose a potential sale. This where the EULA will sometimes help you. With X-Wing versus Tie Fighter, you were allowed to have a copy on different computers. Under normal copyright, you wouldn't be allowed to do this. Originally posted by Luc Solar My problem is with software companies *trying* to impose all sorts of ludicrous restraints on the fair use of software I bought. They need to clean up their act. What is so ludicous? The majority of EULAs entitle you to do most reasonable things you would want to do with their product. They are simply trying to prevent themselves from being ripped off and losing potential sales. Originally posted by Luc Solar 1) information about licensing in general. If you don't *sell* games, you shouldn't lure people into *buying* them. You offer LICENSES. Be honest about it. This could be made more clear, certainly. But you are paying for the license, and that license entitles you to do the majority of the things you could do if you actually bought it. Originally posted by Luc Solar 2) information about the license in question BEFORE the deal is made. Vendors don't usually take returns. If the package is opened it's copied. And saying that is not cynical, but realistic. I agree that this has been handled poorly. However, the problem arises with the problem you stated, that people don't read the EULAs. To garruntee that people will at least see it and agree to it, most times it is made part of the install program. This covers the company in that they know people have agreed to the contract. On the otherhand, they also want to prevent piracy. To do that currently, that usually means the the broken seal thing. So they are just trying to protect themselves against potential losses. Again, I agree it could be done in a better way. Originally posted by Luc Solar 3) ditch the shrink wrap. Opening a package means nothing if the buyer has not knowledge of what he is agreeing to. There is no way around this. This could be handled better, I agree. But until the law catches up with the digital age, this is unlikely to change. I know you guys disagree with the way things are, and you have legitimite reasons. I'm just trying to give you the view from the software comapany's perspective. The majority of companies are not out to screw you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 A few quick thoughts (I'm in a hurry): You can make a gazzilion copies of the software as long as you use it on the one computer at a time Actually this is illegal but not punishable in Finland. (lol) About the laptop+comp thing - I really don't see how that hurts the copyright holder. It's all about flexible use, no different than listening to a CD in your car or in your home stereo. (It's not like anyopne would seriously buy a dozen 25 $ CD's just to be able to listen to the songs on every cd-player they got.) Copying music CD's for private use is allowed, but copying software is illegal atm. I think that is odd. Which brings up another interesting topic: copy protection mechaninsms! (won't get into that now, but you're free to carry on the debate on that as well. It's a freeware idea. ) By foriegn language I assume you mean legal terms Heh. No. By foreign language I'm referring to all the rest of the world that don't know english. Understandable terms is another issue. The consumer protection agency here has said that the manual of the computer needs to be in Finnish AND understandable. It should apply to software to some extent too, especially to EULA's. There are huge basic differences between our legal systems. A guy who worked for a company making elevators showed me the contract they use to sell stuff to europe. It was a few pages long. Then he pulled out a gigantic hunk of paper, the size of three phone books, and said: here's what we use in the USA! The problem from my POW is this: 90% of the EULA's that come to our little country are formed according the the laws of Texas (or whatever state) and written in a strange language using equally strange legal jargon. The stuff I wrote about "nobody reads 'em nor cares anyways" was not legal talk. Just tried to point out that in REALITY nobody cares. Just like those hilarious laws in certain states that f.ex forbid you from riding a whale into town on sundays. I've always wondered about the shrink wrap thing and piracy.. I mean, what good does it dfo? Copyright forbids you from copying it. It's illegal as such. Why would an EULA somewhere grant the copyright holder a better position (legally) or in any way PREVENT the guy from copying?? I think it's quite naiive to assume that a clause in an agreement that has not been read would stop the "criminal" from copying if even the law can't. Another problem are all the key-codes and stuff that can be used after returning the opened package (making it basicly useless). There are good reasons for not taking returns (at the moment). Okie -gotta go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeTRiTiC-iQ Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Anyone ever read the Windows XP Pro license agreement? IIRC it basically says, if you install Windows XP, you are also allowed to install Windows 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tosh_UK Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ Anyone ever read the Windows XP Pro license agreement? IIRC it basically says, if you install Windows XP, you are also allowed to install Windows 2000 Like the long arsed posted above NO ok lets go find some one with there saber down and chat them to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar About the laptop+comp thing - I really don't see how that hurts the copyright holder. It's all about flexible use, no different than listening to a CD in your car or in your home stereo. (It's not like anyopne would seriously buy a dozen 25 $ CD's just to be able to listen to the songs on every cd-player they got.) Copying music CD's for private use is allowed, but copying software is illegal atm. I think that is odd. Which brings up another interesting topic: copy protection mechaninsms! (won't get into that now, but you're free to carry on the debate on that as well. It's a freeware idea. ) First of all, a CD and software program are not considered equivalent under the law, and there are viewed quite differently. But going with that analogy, like you say no one would want to play a CD simultaniously on different players at the same time. Much more likely is that you move your CD from your house, to your car, and back again. It is in only one player at a time. This is very different from having software installed on multiple computers simultaniously, both practically and legally. This is because you are getting two or more copies of the program for the price of one, thus preventing the company for being compensated for that potential sale. Luckily, for things like companies wanting to buy software to be used by employees, they can get a site license that allows them to install multiple copies off one CD. This is much cheaper than having to buy the software seperately for each employee. Originally posted by Luc Solar Heh. No. By foreign language I'm referring to all the rest of the world that don't know english. Understandable terms is another issue. The consumer protection agency here has said that the manual of the computer needs to be in Finnish AND understandable. It should apply to software to some extent too, especially to EULA's. There are huge basic differences between our legal systems. A guy who worked for a company making elevators showed me the contract they use to sell stuff to europe. It was a few pages long. Then he pulled out a gigantic hunk of paper, the size of three phone books, and said: here's what we use in the USA! The problem from my POW is this: 90% of the EULA's that come to our little country are formed according the the laws of Texas (or whatever state) and written in a strange language using equally strange legal jargon. I got it now I agree that that the EULA and legal information needs to be expressed in the spoken language that the software is in. Since I am in Canada, I've never encountered a problem getting english software. Your experiences may differ, so I can't comment on that. Suffice to say, I agree with you on this point Originally posted by Luc Solar I've always wondered about the shrink wrap thing and piracy.. I mean, what good does it dfo? Copyright forbids you from copying it. It's illegal as such. Why would an EULA somewhere grant the copyright holder a better position (legally) or in any way PREVENT the guy from copying?? I think it's quite naiive to assume that a clause in an agreement that has not been read would stop the "criminal" from copying if even the law can't. Another problem are all the key-codes and stuff that can be used after returning the opened package (making it basicly useless). There are good reasons for not taking returns (at the moment). The reason why just relying on copyright for practical protection is not enough is because the burden of proof will be on the company if they choose to charge someone of piracy. How are they going to show that the disk was copied? By having the "broken seal" thing is to show that the user agreed that breaking the seal means that the disk was "used". That is enough to prevent someone from getting money back when they shouldn't. I don't think I explained that very well, but hopefully you get my point. But in terms of not agreeing with the EULA, as far as I know you can contact the company to get your money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted May 23, 2003 Author Share Posted May 23, 2003 Gees, lets please keep the individual post lengths down to a page. It's hard to read and hard on the eyes. Anyway, good news. the people at PC Gamer UK replied and are sending me a free copy of the mag in question and a free subscription! sweet! Anyway, apprenently the guy that did the CDs just switched jobs and forgot to ask permission for the last CD before he left. Basically, that's the best I could hope for and am very happy with the situation now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 ..... wha....? So we're not gonna sue 'em? Not even a little?? Seriously: That's what I wanted to hear. That's "common courtesy"... giving the author some credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 That is good news. I'm glad everything worked out for you. And sorry about all the long posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Yeah, I'm sorry too. Prime's posts were way too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar Yeah, I'm sorry too. Prime's posts were way too long. Hey!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Cool. MotF is awesome, I'm glad to hear everything worked out well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.