Printable View
Sorry but that is just not true in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
I have Daemon tools installed and I'm running Kingdoms just fine.
Let's all try to stick to the facts and avoid this very useful thread getting confused with speculation and hearsay.
I for one am monitoring this situation very closely, despite having made a decision to install the expansion and take a risk.
I said CAN HAVE and IIRC in trying to answer a message that Swoosh So didnt understand at all. Maybe you should monitor the english language along with "the situation". Safedisc4 definitely looked for alcohol and I thought I recalled (perhaps wrongly) that Securom did too. MEA ******* CULPA!Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
I boycotted Bioshock, but bought and installed Kingdoms too late to do anything. I suppose I'll have to be parinoid and check out every new game I buy now. *sigh*
I don't mind the software, actually. I'm not all that worried about the security of this computer. It's the principle of the matter. So I suppose if EB2 comes out for Kingdoms it will be worth it, I suppose. Because I'd gladly sell my soul for EB2.
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
apologies if I came across a little sanctimonious there, I didn't mean to
I've read the whole of this thread and in doing so heard a lot of scary things about Securom, many of which are very difficult to verify
so my intention was just to politely request that people refrain from posting things which were not backed up by actual experience, for the benefit of those of us who are worried about this and trying to get to the truth of the matter
now I'm off to monitor the English language
laters
That's simply not true. Law trumps EULA. Every single time. It's as simple as that, really. Yes, you agree to it, and you agree to bind yourself to it. HOWEVER, if what is said is not valid under your legal system, then it's worth absolutely nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
For example, if someone writes "it's illegal to share this software with friends" in the EULA, and you hit the agree button, thus binding you to that. However, since the law says that you can share it with your friend, then that EULA can go burn.
Btw(and completely off topic), I agreed to an EULA that prohibited me from using that software to create biological, chemical or nuclear weapons....
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You are welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraggenmor
I do not know, sorry
To put something with substance into the legal issue.
Company behaviors considered illegal by state Attorneys General:
1) State of New York
Employing deceptive methods to prevent users from detecting and removing installed software, including: not making the software accessible in the "All Programs" or "Programs" list, hiding the software in folders not usually associated with programs, not listing the software in the "Add/Remove Programs" utility, not providing an uninstall utility for the software, and reinstalling the software after a user has deleted it.
2) State of Texas
Secretly installing files on a user's computer before the user has consented to the installation.
Failing to provide an uninstall utility for files secretly installed before a user has consented to the installation.
3) People of the State of California
Failing to adequately disclose that DRM software uses cloaking technology to hide itself on users’ computers.
Source: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/spyware/2...ment-state.php
SEGA doesn't read these forums. CA does. If CA hears enough people complaining about these things, they'll take it to SEGA and let them know it's costing them sales. Then things may change.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
Ah yes that tactic worked fine during RTW.
Attack CA for activision's mistake.
Yep, worked perfectly
Not.
All it did was pushing them further into their shell.
It wasn't until people cooled down and stopped blaming them for choices they did not do that they became open again.
And SEGA does read the forums.
So stop blaming CA and blame SEGA.
How do you know SEGA reps read this particular forum and care about the content?
Because they have stated that they read the forums and since the Securom issue has popped up on the .com the chances are doubled.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Now if they actually care about the Securom issue however is another matter and is something we will see in either 2 responses, 1. they release tools to remove it or 2. they don't.
Only they can decide.
And if they happened to miss this particular thread then chances are higher that CA haven't.
And what will/do they see when they look at this thread ??
Them getting attacked for something they have no control over.
Again.
Not only is it a nasty reminder of how things were when RTW was released but it shows that once again the fanbase can't tell the difference between what CA does and a companies like SEGA does.
Are we gonna have people write to Gamespot again only to get an answer back that they didn't wanna hear ??
So shall we stop this madness before it goes out of control(again) and stop saying "CA did this, CA did that", stop beating that dead horse and actually complain to the real people behind this decision ??
I think we should.:2thumbsup:
Allright, I can install without internetconnection, clear. Assuming that securom is with Kingdoms, what use does it have one a PC that has no internet, they can't update nor report to Sega... so what harm could it do or what use does it have on a PC without internet?
It never required a internet connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
That was Bioshock.
Kingdoms comes when you install the game, with the internet or without.
In any event, I wasn't attacking CA. I just told them I wasn't buying Kingdoms because of this. Not an attack, but something I'd want to know if I were them.
No, that's hair-splitting the difference between these two companies, when they're actually tied up in the same business operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
It's entirely accurate and reasonable for me to say "CA isn't going to get my money for the Kingdoms expansion unless I hear that they're doing something about the files SecureRom leaves behind on my computer". That is, unless you think CA never gets a penny for sales of the expansion. If they're profiting from sales, then they're involved in this.
CA might not have known the DRM was going to go out with the expansion, but now that they do know it's there, they have a responsibility to work with Sega on resolving the issue (if they care to). If they don't care about it, that's fine too... there are plenty of other games out there I can buy. This isn't only about Sega, it's about CA's reputation being on the line too, and whether or not I pay attention to future releases by that company, whoever their publisher is.
The "harm" it does is subjective, and it depends on how you feel about a program installing hidden files, that not only aren't automatically removed when you uninstall the game, but that you actually can't remove yourself by any normal method. Potentially, it's a back door for hackers who might be able to exploit the registry entries. Potentially, it's a future headache for anti-virus programs and rootkit detectors that will flag the file because it resembles known rootkit methods. So it depends on whether you want to allow this on your computer, and deal with any future hassles because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
My personal take on it, is that it's a nasty, arrogant form of copy protection, but it's not as nasty as true rootkit-like DRM like Starforce, which Ubi (among others) was forced to drop. If CA/Sega came out and said "we'll release a utility that completely removes SecureRom after the game is uninstalled," then I'd be comfortable buying Kingdoms. So far... silence.... so my money stays in my wallet. Everyone will have to make their own decisions about this.
P.S. on the "official" SecureRom removal tips posted earlier... I'd like some verification that it's a clean wipe, and doesn't leave hidden registry keys. I'm certainly not going to take SecureRom's word for it. And a solution for this really should come from CA/Sega, since they're the immediate cause of the problem (it's their disk I'd be loading into my drive to install this crap), and they should be made to understand that they're risking lost sales because of it.
Hey davebaby thanks alot changing the drivers worked, btw guys what an excelltent expansion this is single player* you would have to be crazy to miss out on the excellent crusades campaign for a start just cause of some registry entry!
@Zenicetus, so if I understand it good enough it means that it actually only makes problems with a PC with internet, I mean hackers and firewalls... So if you dont have internet on your PC those 2 problems are not an issue, so apart from the fact that it installs stuff without letting you know those 2 are the only or main problems? IF thats it ill buy the game when the price drops, play it one day entirely and return it if i dont like it...
BTW: You've did you intentionally miswrote your sig? if so what does the last word mean...
OTQ: IS kingdoms worth it? Is it an improvement of MTW2 and a good game? are there any gamebreaking bugs discovered yet or not?
Yes, yes, and No. You should get it unless the Securom thing really bothers you.Quote:
OTQ: IS kingdoms worth it? Is it an improvement of MTW2 and a good game? are there any gamebreaking bugs discovered yet or not?
If you don't have your gaming PC hooked up to the Internet, then I guess you don't have to worry about anyone hacking it for back door access. The hidden files might still be flagged by current or future anti-virus software, but maybe you're not running any if you're not online?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
That's what one of the Mongol generals says in M2TW, when you click his icon on the strategy map -- "fear is a weapon, wise generals use well", but the hiliarious voice acting sounds like something out of an old Fu Manchu or Charlie Chan movie, where the villain swallows all the "L"'s. I just wrote out what I heard. :laugh4: I would have loved to have been there, during that recording session for the game. I'll bet they were all cracking up.Quote:
BTW: You've did you intentionally miswrote your sig? if so what does the last word mean...
Looking at the marketing blurb on the SecuRom site this software comes with a number of different options.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigbossnahhh
The basic SecuCD-R and Electronic CD-Key encryption options seem to have no need to access the internet at all. They claim to be totally self-sufficient in the way they operate.
However, if you look here you will see that SecuRom are offering a number of additional (value-added) options to the basic system. http://www.securom.com/solution_market.asp
The most worrying of which is n-cd. n-cd is blatantly a spyware option, Securom actually highlight the fact that it can be used to 'Collect valuable customer data for 1 : 1 marketing activities' that means it must be monitoring your usage of your PC and reporting this information back to its owner.
Another optional feature will be the ability to force the user to access specific websites of the owners chioce automatically when the CD is placed in the drive. The selling point here being that the customer can also be prevented from accessing certain websites unless the CD is in the drive, but as the trigger is an executable, it also has the ability to access the internet and open the website for you. The potential commercial value of this is obvious and would be one stage better than the annoying pop-up problem we currently have to endure thanks to the desires of commercial marketing.
It also worth noting that not only are SecuRom distributing this program as a .EXE file, (Which is something we are all told never to download onto our PC's) they are also selling SecuRom toolkits to allow their customers to produce there own encrypted .EXE files for distribution by them. The only service SecuRom offer in this case is CD burning and distribution.
The implications of this would seem obvious. If a customer can produce their own personal variation of SecuRom, then the security of our systems is not even protected by whatever commercial integrity Sony may have in ensuring that the content of the .exe file is controlled.
Basically, any commercial customer of SecuRom could edit the content of the .exe file to suit their own aims, and more importantly it means that SecuRom Toolkits are going to be floating around commercial offices all round the world for hackers and other less desirable individuals to lay hands on and expliot.
Because we are merely the customer, and therefore have no control over this process, we have no way of knowing whether a disc has Securom on it, or what options the disc supplier has taken, or what the SecuRom.exe file might have been programmed to do and by whom. Therefore, our systems are completely at the mercy of person or persons unknown, and under normal circumstances the average customer would have no way of knowing that his system has been hacked by this program at all, as it does not announce its presence or ask our permission before installing itself on our PC's.
Well as far as I can tell from what people say however SEGA didn't use a version with an executable in this case. So that's not exactly the problem.
I just don't like it on principle to have things installed in folders that I didn't even know were there, registry keys created I didn't expect and in general being forced to shut down cd-image mounting programs.
I am but I'm pretty sure that under English law, you cannot change the terms of a contract after consideration has been exchanged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
As I said before....this is completely different when buying software for commericial organisations because there you do contract for the purchase of blocks of licenses and the software itself is free.
However, even in the commercial sector the vendor is not allowed to change the terms of the contract after consideration has been exchanged, and I have actually been involved in cases where suppliers have tried to impose terms on the purchaser by printing information on their invoices, or in some cases on their user agreements after the order has been placed, and in every case the English courts have ruled that these terms were invalid.
Again...I think you will find that that is not the case in the UK. The basic issue is that there is no consideration being exchanged at that point and therefore there is no contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
More importantly, you already have a valid contract for the supply of the game, which you entered into with the retailer and for which consideration was paid. Therefore, any attempt to change the terms of this contract would be deemed illegal under English Law.
Nope! again merely removing the shrink wrap on a box is not consideration. Particularly if you have already paid for the box and its contents. At that point you actually own the box and everything in it and nobody at that point can impose any further restriction on what you do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
As the terms are not binding this is not the case. The license agreement is nothing but noise and can be ignored. The only thing restricting your use of software purchased from a retailer are the existing and overarching laws relating to copyright and intellectual property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
I am interested to get an official ruling on this as I'm not sure if anyone has actually challenged this in a court of law before. The usual way of prosecuting software pirates is to use the standard laws, I'm not aware of any gaming company trying to actually enforce its licensing agreement. I suspect they would just get laughed at.
im not running any firewalls... allright.. im convinced... im going to try it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
thanx:2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
When you buy software you own nothing but the wrapping and the physical cd but not whats on it! What you also get is a licence to use it under strict conditions. Similar to a rental agreement only more attractivaly wrapped to create an impression that the buyer is actually buying something more tangible than only a licence.
Lets assume that EULA's are illegal under English Law (therefore same would probably hold true in Australia) then logically it would be illegal to bundle a EULA within the software. This is clearly not the case as I am sure all software and pc games (and in some cases music CD's and movie DVD's?) are sold with a full EULA included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
As stated previously a EULA was originally developed to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers but the question remains can what essentially amounts to copyright licence be turned into a contract? Until a court rules otherwise the answer probably remains as an affirmative and as yet that has not been challenged in Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Nevertheless the law regarding shrinkwrap, clickwrap and browsewrap licenses remains, in many respects unclear. But keep in mind it is corporations like Microsoft, Adobe etc that are endorsing more invasive and controversial legislation regarding copyright & Intellectual property laws. This is understandable since they do have a vested interest to do so which according to their reasoning would minimize piracy and therefore increase sales.
Having read a few recent cases regarding this shrinkwrap licences I would hardly describe it as something someone would laugh at. Sadly, more recent cases in the US seem to very much rule in favour of corporations. On the other hand European cases seem to favour the poor consumer which for some bazaar reasoning is always portrayed as a victim.
Realistically an individual has no real financial means to challenge a corporation which have become adept at drawing out court cases to the point of bankrupcy.
Interesting reading here
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/eula.html
In my country, misrepresenting a product for sale or the nature of an agreement is considered fraud, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. I sincerely doubt that this is what the game industry is doing when they wrap up their products in nice packaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
If English Law is anything like Danish Law, you assume incorrectly. EULAs are not illegal, they are simply not legally binding. Writing any kind of BS on a piece of paper and calling it an "agreement" or "contract" does not make it so. EULAs are no more legally binding than the writing on the receipt.Quote:
Lets assume that EULA's are illegal under English Law
No. EULAs do no such thing, as IP rights are governed by applicable law.Quote:
As stated previously a EULA was originally developed to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers
EULAs were developed to push the corporate interpretation of the law on their customers. They are a PR efforts, nothing more.
Links, please.Quote:
Having read a few recent cases regarding this shrinkwrap licences I would hardly describe it as something someone would laugh at.
A Linux site telling us that EULAs are really pacts with the devil, and that we should stay away from commercial software in favor of free software (incidently what they are trying to "sell"), is interesting?Quote:
Have you no critical reading skills whatsoever?
Again, not in the UK. In the UK the essence of the contract is agree at point of sale, thus whatever the parties agree at the counter in the store (or the checkout of the electronic webstore) is the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
The customer is never informed prior to payment that he is not buying the software. He is allowed to beleive that he is buying the game, that means the entire product including the software. As that is the understanding at point of sale, then that is the essence of the contract entered into by the customer and anything that comes after that is not binding on either party.
This actually makes a lot of sense legally. If you think about it, if you were correct and all the customer was buying was the wrapping and physical CD then the customer would have no legal recourse to complain to the retailer if the software on the CD did not instal or work properly.
If the software on the CD was not included in the contract between the retailer and customer then the retailer would not be legally responsible for its quality, or indeed whether it existed at all. The only recourse the customer would have against the retailer would be if the packaging was defective or the CD was missing from the box. If the software was defective his only recourse would be against the software designers as by your argument his contract for the software would be with them, not the retailers.
The fact that this is not the case belies the fact that in the UK this is not the true. When you buy a game from a retailer you are paying FOR THE GAME, including the software, and the retailer is contractually responsible for the existence, quality and fitness for purpose of the entire product.
Thus, if the game does not run properly, you can take the game back to the shop and insist on your money back for failure to comply with the terms of the original contract.
No thats playing with words....the EULA's are illegal in that they attempt to vary the terms of an existing contract. In actual fact they are attempting to impose terms on a contract which the writers of the EULA are not even a party too. Attempting to do this is not legal but its not an offence, in fact I have given several examples during this discussion of ways commercial companies try to con their customers into believing that they are able to do this, the most common being the printing of sale conditions on invoices, and signs in shops limiting the time you have to return goods. There is nothing to prevent a retailer doing this but attempting to enforce these conditions would fail and could result in prosecution for unfair trading practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
So, basically software companies are free to bunble whatever legal looking crap they like inside the CD box and on the CD, but it doesn't mean anything, and if they attempted to take action to enforce any of it they could become liable for prosecution.
Thats not the case either....EULA's are not necessary to protect copyright or IP. Such things are protected under English Law in general along with all other such products. The reason we cannot see any case law confirming whether an EULA is enforcable or not, is quite simply because nobody has ever tried to enforce one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
Its not necessary, because the property is protected without it, and it would not be enforcable anyway because it was never the subject of a binding contract. As such it is just ignored by the customer and never becomes an issue to be challenged or enforced in court.
This is partly the reason why when I rang the OFT they were unable to give me an 'off the cuff' ruling, and presumably why they referred the issue up the chain for consideration. In fact, the SecuRom issue may be just be the catalyst that brings this issue to court, as SecuRom is being used to impose additional conditions on a contract (e.g. you may only instal this game 5 times) after the contract has been agreed. That IS an offence under English Law and could be challenged by a customer in a court.
Logic would suggest that any customer who buys a game which has been secretly restricted in this way, could take the retailer they bought it from to court and claim compensation for imposing a restriction on the use of the product which they did not disclose prior to purchase. This would then force the courts to make a ruling on whether this action is legal or not and that in turn would clarify the case law relating to all EULA's and their means of enforcement.
@ Nebuchadnezzar
may i ask what u base your assumption that UK courts will take the same view as Austrailian courts on?
although most common wealth countries have the same old english law that that their thie legislature is built on, it dioes not necessarily mean they are applied in the same way today.
As you say american courts always take different view to european courts and i personally think the european courts have got it right. its the consumer who need protection not the corporation. they have enough money to employ the biggest lawyers to represent them consumers do not.
also would like to point out that UK courts always apply a test of reasonableness to any contract. i have first hand knowledge where 2 parties were operating undercontract for several years which was signed under no duress or misinformation. however the contrct was drawn out in a way that was totoally biased to one party and restrictive to the other. although the disavantaged party was fully aware of what they were signing (they didnt pay attention to detail due to personal trust) a majortiy of the ureasonably restrictive claused were ignored by the courts.
the point i'm trying to make is that any contract even if signed properly with full information will still not be binding if unreasonable to one party. similarly just because an EULA exists doesnt make it binding.
another point is that wheather ot not the EULA is legal/reasonable or binding does not matter if the vendor has not taken enough steps to ensure that the customer is aware of any limitation cluases. having clicked to the agreement is not going to be enough as the courts will look at the practical reality of what people actually do when they install software. i doubt enough people actially read an EULA or even understand it for it be legally binding.
No. The wrapping, physical CD and the licence to use the game/software on the CD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Off coarse they have recourse. It includes a warranty and the usual trade practices act, consumer act etc...
If you think you own it for $50.00 or whatever so install it on as many computers as you like, make as many copies as you wish and sell them off at a lower cost. Your kidding me right?
A EULA nowadays includes many additions including any restrictions of use, disclaimers, warranties, support information and reminders of statutory rights to consumers just to name a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Your kidding me right. Adobe, Microsoft not enforce their EULA's
Where have you been lol...
Believe me. There are enough case reports, all you need to do is a bit of searching.
@Tamujin
What am I, your legal rep? Go and search your own links out. At the same time why not discover a book.
I have searched, and can find nothing on "recent cases regarding this shrinkwrap licences" where such things were enforced. I did find this, though:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
http://www.freibrun.com/articles/articl22.htm
A clear example of a shrink-wrap license not holding up in court, in the "corp-friendly" US of A no less.
You claimed to have read of recent cases where such licenses were upheld. I politely request that you back that claim up with actual information.
And what the **** is that supposed to mean?!?Quote:
At the same time why not discover a book.
This is a very interesting take on it. My gut reaction is to say that the payment to the retailer is the consideration, because the retailer is a licensed agent of the copyright holder. That would make the payment price the consideration for the EULA contract. That said, it would only work if the company you bought the game from really was acting as an agent. I wonder if all retailers have contractual agreements with the publishers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
However, even if the retailer was an agent of the publisher for the purposes of the original purpose, I doubt they are for the purpose of selling used games. I know that one of the reasons EB/Gamestop pushes used games so heavily is because they do not have to pay any royalties to the publisher for those sales. If no money is going back to the publisher, I cannot imagine that it can be considered the act of an agent. This would mean that there is no way for consideration to be exchanged with the publisher when buying a used game. Thus the EULA would be an invalid contract because of a lack of consideration.
Didz, I am very impressed. That is a line of legal analysis I had never even thought of before. I'm going to ask around the office and see what some of the other attorneys think.
I'm not sure on this, but doesn't the agent (seller) pay the publisher to get the game on the shelf and the actual sale basically pays back the price of the game to the seller plus a bit more (which is the difference between amount paid to publisher and sold to consumer)?
At least I remember a friend who runs a bookstore telling me that he has to buy the books from the publisher and they basically belong to him, although he can send back a reasonable amount for reimbursement at times. Usually he jsut gets the difference or a royalty agreed witht he publisher when buying the books to sell.
Yep, which is why the used game market is a major focus for game retailers. They do not have to pay royalties on them. So, even though the game originall retails for $50, the retailer may only get $5 of that. In contrast, the same game that sells for $30 used results in $30 for the retailer, so it is far more profitable, even though it sells at a lower price.
"Fair use" means I can install it on as many computers as I like (so long as I only play it on one at a time) and I can make as many copies as I like so long as I dont infringe on their copyright ie I dont sell the copies or give them to non-licence holders others to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
Didz is correct in that companies make all kinds of statements that have no legal bearing whatever. They just count on an unsophisticated public to believe their statements are legally backed in some way. One of the more common ones here are signs on gravel trucks saying "keep back 300 ft - not responsible for broken windshields". I always laugh when I see those.
I recently paid $4000 for a computer solely for use as a gaming platform. I don't even have a word processing program on this thing. I have a package from Amazon waiting for me at home. Guess what's in it? Guess what will be going back to Amazon tomorrow morning?
That seems a little extreme to me. If I had $4000 for a gaming machine and I liked M2TW enough to buy kingdoms I'd play it. Re-formatting the drive when you're though isnt that big a deal. I guess you're playing other games though or maybe you're extremely principled.Quote:
Originally Posted by jepva
Are you serious? It's more than reformatting the drive. SecureRom installs hidden, non-deletable files in the Windows registry (and lord only knows where else). So we're talking about a HD wipe and a complete re-install of Windows to clear out the system. You'd do that just for one game?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
The point you are ignoring is that if the contract at point of sale was only for the box and its content then there would be no contract with the retailer which covered the quality of the software on the CD, and if there was no contract to cover the quality of the software then the consumer would have no legal right to return the software to the retailer if it was faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
Under your scenario, the contract for the software would be the subject of the license agreement and not entered into until the consumer agreed to accept the terms of the EULA, At that point a second contract would be formed into between the consumer and the software supplier and so if the software proved to be faulty then the consumer could only hold the software supplier accountable for it and would have to deal direct with them. Not the retailer.
The fact, that in the UK this is NOT the case, proves, in my opinion, that the contract at point of sale includes the software on the disk. As such the retailer is legally responsible under the contract to rectified or replace any faulty software at their own expense.
This was in fact tested in the Blizzcon case where we were told quite clearly that despite being supplied with, and installing, the wrong software we had NO contract with Blizzard, only with the retailers who sold us the game. Thus despite the fact that we had been sold the wrong version of the software on the disk the only recourse we had was against the retailers who sold us that software.
I have...and I've spoken to the OFC. We went all through this issue with the Blizzcon case. Just accept the fact the English Law doesn't work the way you think it does. The contract is soley with the retailer who sold you the game, the EULA has no legal impact, its just noise during the installation process and cannot be legally enforced. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
I would argue that even if the retailer was the agent for the copyright holder, the terms contained in their EULA cannot be included as terms in your contract with the retailer as at the point of sale the purchaser is not given the opportunity to understand what those terms are. English Law states that the terms of any contract are only those terms which have been disclosed, understood and agreed prior to the exchange of consideration. Therefore, even if the retailer told the customer 'This purchase is subject to the terms contained in the EULA inside the box', those terms would NOT be legally binding upon the purchaser, becuase the purchaser had no opportunity to understand them before he paid for the product.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
To make the EULA a legally binding part of the contract the customer would have to be forced to read and sign it before the retailer sold him the game, and I can just imagine the uproar about that in a crowded high street game shop. However, go and buy a mobile phone and that is exactly what you are forced to do before the phone is handed over and your money taken. Thats because the contract for the purchase of a mobile phone does have to include the contractual terms imposed by the network company who supply you with the service. Thus those terms have to be agree with the customer before the customer pays for the phone, otherwise they would NOT be legally binding on the customer.
Now, as I explained to Neb some game retailers that require you to DL the software off the internet might well force you to accept the terms of their EULA before you commence the download and they debit your credit card. Whether an English court would accept that ticking a tick box on an internet site is sufficient proof that the purchaser read the EULA is less certain but at least the process is in the correct sequence. In the Blizzard case, the ruling was that Blizzard's publication of a notification that their European Burning Crusade Collectors Editions contained the wrong version of the software on the disks was 'insufficient to ensure that all customers were informed of the error prior to purchase, and therefore did not vary the nature of the contract between the retailer the customer', which is not quite the same thing but gives some indication of how English Law views internet based disclosure.
If they did accept it as evidence of understanding then terms of the EULA would indeed form part of the contract, but this method of sale is still pretty rare. Most games are still sold as boxes and so the EULA has no legal value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Re-format the drive and re-install windows and hardware drivers. Depending on the size of the HD's and the "phase of the moon" (for windows), two hours tops.
As I said, if I spent $4000 for a PC (which I dont) and I liked M2TW (which I dont) and I had purchased Kingdoms (which I havent) I'd probably play it. After all I purchased my first PC to play CIV2 (used macs before that) and I've certainly purchased PC's with higher end graphics than I need in order to play TW (and RoN).
Reformatting is wiping the HDD ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
And yeah, I'm not in that situation, but were I paranoid enough to care about SecuRom, it wouldn't particularly bother me...
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
If you don't consider that having to format your drive after uninstalling a game is "big deal", then you should get a reality check.
Considering how many files can still be recovered (by specialists) from a formatted hard disk, one does have to wonder whether all traces of these rootkit-like devices are truly removed and no longer readable.
Down boy! Down!Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
I'm not a fan of Securom or of the fact that companies use such rubbish. [sarcasm]It took a whole half hour to get around CIV4's Safedisk "protection" after learning it didnt like alcohol[sarcasm].
As for reality, as I said in my last post I dont consider re-formatting and re-installing that big of a deal. I had to do it just a few months ago due to what I thought was a faulty catalyst control center - they are virtually impossible to remove too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
If you do a full format and partition they're gone.
They'll still be there, to be sure; but will be in a completely unreadable state, as the fresh OS can't 'know' that they exist, or where they are ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I'll take your word on it for UK courts. US courts have consistently upheld the validity of EULA agreements, so long as the terms of the EULA are not unconscionable or otherwise abhorrent to the law. That said, I can't remember any discussion of consideration so perhaps that line of reasoning has not yet been advanced. Of course, now that I've said that, the more likely situation is that I have simply forgotten or never read the right caselaw in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
The difference between EULA restrictions and copyright law have been explained about 20 times during the course of this thread, and youre still trying to drag it out as a valid argument again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
One more time: Copyright law has nothing to do with EULA. Copyright and itellectual property law still applies whether a EULA exists or not, and regardless of whether you clicked 'ok' or if you even bought the software in the first place. Its a LAW, not an agreement.
Laws trump agreements, every time. Without fail.
If you state something to be true, the onus is on you to come up with supporting evidence. We're not going to prove your arguments for you, thats your job.Quote:
Believe me. There are enough case reports, all you need to do is a bit of searching.
@Tamujin
What am I, your legal rep? Go and search your own links out. At the same time why not discover a book.
Didz:
I talked to a contract law specialist and it seems we're both totally off-base. Consideration isn't required for the EULA because the EULA isn't a contract at all. It's a Licensing Agreement (Duh! :wall:) which is simply the terms that the copyright holder imposes to allow the user to use the work. Since it is not a contract, it can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time. Licensing Agreements made with consideration (such as a specific payment to Microsoft to allow 50 copies of XP to be installed for business purposes) become valid contracts, but that is not the case for typical retail sale of games. MMOs demonstrate contractual licensing agreements, as the contract is directly with the publisher and a monthly fee is partly consideration for use of the work.
Essentially, when you buy the game in the store, you are simply purchasing the physical box, manual, and disk, not the right to use the work on the disk. In order to use the work, you then have to agree to the non-contractual EULA which can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time.
Obviously, the EULA itself cannot violate copyright or contract law, and any provisions in it that do so are invalid and non-binding. However, any terms that are otherwise construed as legitimate by the courts are binding as part of your agreement with the copyright holder to use the work. So, the real question is not whether the whole EULA is valid (which it generally is) but rather whether the individual clauses are unconscionable or otherwise in violation of the law.
Good thing I haven't been asked to write any contracts recently! :oops:
Please allow me to review a few cases I dug-up if I may.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
In the shrinkwrap case Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech it was claimed that the contract was made at the time of sale (or in this case over the telephone) and the shrinkwrap license encased was a proposals for addition to the contract. The court held that the terms of the shrinkwrap license were not enforceable because Step-Saver had not assented to them.
and again with Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. The court followed the Step-Saver rationale claiming the terms of the shrinkwrap license was a proposal for a modification to the contract.
But things start making a turn from this moment. The link Tamujin posted regarding the shrinkwrap case ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg is a classic in which the article describes how the court held that the license agreement terms contained inside the Select Phone package constituted additional terms to which Zeidenberg did not agree. Although I did notice a short statement in the article that the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Although its dated 1996) this particular case seems to be doing the internet rounds as a Samson Vs Goliath victory for consumers but the truth being that under appeal the ruling was reversed. ProCD, through the retail store, was the offeror, and had proposed a contract that the buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license. When Zeidenberg used the software he accepted, creating a contract including the terms of the shrinkwrap license.
Again M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., where Mortenson argued that the license was a contract modification but the court followed ProCD and held that the license terms were part of the agreement.
Much of the litigation regarding clickwrap (the I agree popup thingy you have to agree too before install/use for first time in software) licenses the courts have found to be enforceable such eg in i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp. and Caspi v. Microsoft Network.
Conclusions:
A contract is only completed when the user agrees to the terms popup and not at time of money change-over at the store. Take for example a sporting event where the purchaser pays money up front and later receives the tickets with the terms included. Logic dictates this is not uncommon nor unreasonable and should be regarded as a legitimate means of transaction. The money first terms later transactions are here with us to stay whether you like it or not. The onus is very much on the consumer which can request a copy of the terms before purchasing or even return the software if they do not wish to accept the terms at time of installation.
I am not familiar with the Blizzcon case so am somewhat reluctant to comment especially a case thats still pending. But do forgive me for being sceptical because I don't accept the word of a single individual particularly if it contradicts more orthodox reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Thank you so much for reminding me, however you are incorrect. A EULA has very much to do with intellectual property and copyright. Since the software in most cases must be installed on the users computer there need to be restrictions to protect the commercial interests of the makers and its simply very naive to think that standard copyright and IP laws are sufficient. A EULA is used to expand control over someones work for which the standard copyright protection law is deficient and perhaps denied. It can also be used to protect the IP rights and copyright in countries were such laws are absent or deficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
I would have thought my opinion as pretty orthodox from a commercial perspective. If someone wishes to provide an alternative opinion then don't you think they should be providing the supporting evidence? If they wish not to accept it then thats OK too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
I could just as easily quote Tamujins reply-post with "Links Please" replies.
all your examples are from outside UK and didz and others including me are arguinh about UK law. the coujtry you reside in may not pretect the consumer but the britsh law does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar
if u have aproblem with a particular individual's argument it would be better for you to research what he talking about (british law not american or australian) all you have done so far is repeat yourself endlessly provide no backup ( except for this instance where u provide irrelevant data about another countries ruling) and choose which bits of an argument to accept or not and completely ignore points that have been explined over and over again
furthermore the argument is not unorthodox at all if you have any idea about contract law in the UK.
Nebuchadnezzar, Sapi
Sapi, I didn't say all those things deal with Sercurecom, you are not reading them correctly.
OK just a few things, IN contract law in UK, New Zealand, Australia.
Let me Try and Explain. What is a contract. From my law books.
A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more persons which is intended to be enforceable under law. The most common sort of contract is one whereby the parties make reciprocal promises to each other - for instance.
A promised to sell to B a house in return for $150,000. Promised by B;
C promises to work for D in return for a weekly wage of $1000.00 promised by D.
Of course the possible subject matter of Contracts is endless.
But the essential elements of a contract are as follows, this is not a discussion, this is our law. It is Fact.
1. There must be an agreement between the parties as to the terms of their bargin. This agreement is normally arrived at by a process of offer and acceptance, (case law; Byrne & Co, v Van Tienhoven & co (1880) offer and acceptance), whereby one party makes the other an offer containing the terms on which he is prepard to do business, and the other accepts that offer. It is used commanly to be said thjat a contract involved a "consenues ad idem" or meeting of the minds. Although such a statement has it's uses, it must surely be treated with caution. Evidence of agreement must be gleaned objectively, ie by looking at what a person has said and done rather than at what he or she thinks in his or her innermost mind;
What is relevent is what a reasonable person would understand that person to have agreed to rather than what he or she secertly thought he or she was agreeing to:
2. The parties must have intened to create legal relations.
3. There must be consideration. This is an expession of the essential bargin nature of contract. Each party gives the other something and each party gets something in return.
Thus in the example of the sale of the house given above, the consideration for A's promise to transfer the house to B is B's promise to pay $150,000, and vice versa.
A promise for which there is no consideration is not enforceable as a contract - for instance a promise to give a friend $1000 as a wedding present.
4. Both parties must have the capacity to contract.
This deals with minors, under age of 18. You cannot by law contract a minor.
Unless, they are legally married, in which they have limited contractual capacity. Or those delared bankrupt, or mentally ill. SO by definition anyone under the age of 18 can not be held by anything Sega has written.
BY law, these four points must happen, to make and complete a contract.
Legal Authorities.
Byrne & Co, v Van Tienhoven & co (1880) Acceptance and offer.
Hire Purchase Act 1971 Concerns conditions and quailty.
Consumers Guarantees Act 1993
Minors Act.
Oh hell i can't be bothered looking them all up.
The Law Says.
Shops, A display in a shop window is only an invitation to treat: (Case law, Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 qb 394, [1960] 3 All ER 731)
IN effect, since shop sales will be bilateral contracts, the shop window display is treated under the princple governing advertisements.
The same Rule will usually apply to displays of goods within a shop. These are normally an invitation to treat by the shopkeeper. The contractual offer is made by the customer who approaches the cash desk intimating a willingness to buy the good in question and the shopkeeper may accept or refuse this offer:
Case law: Pharmaceutial Society of Great Britian v Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482
Our Contract has never been with Sega, or CA, it is with the shopkeeper. So we purchse our product from a shop. Yesss thats right we own our OWN copy. NO LICENSE. Except if you live in the USA. You only have a right to use it, and you only have a license.
It's like buying your own copy of the Ford Falcon XR6, you don't buy a license to park one in your garage.
We have no contract with Sega, even after clicking the "I Agree", except where it deals with Copyright. FOr the hard of Hearing.....THATS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
The Eula
In no event shall Sega or its licensors be liable for special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, including without limitation the risks connected with lost profit, damage to property, lost data, loss of goodwill, console, computer or handheld device failure, errors and lost business or other information as a result of possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, or personal injuries, even if Sega has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damages.
Not true, In fact I publicly call Sega a lair....that is right for the USA, but Sega must comply with the Consumer Act. Which says Sega has a duty of Care to it's customers, and the fair trading act says their product must be fit for purpose.
Fair Trading Act: "Prohibts conduct in trade which is misleading or decptive and certain false representations in connection with the supply of goods and services or in relation to land".
"Persons who suffer loss or damages caused by the conduct in breach of the act may institute civil procedings for the amount of loss and or damages".
It further goes on to say, that any term in a contract purporting to contract out of the provisions of the Act "can be of No effect".
Authority: Smythe v Bayley's Real Estate Ltd (1993) 5 TCLR 454
Justice J Thomas recognised in his summation, that it could not be ousted by any private agreement. And went on to say...
"The Courts could not allow anyone simply to opt out of a statute decreeing fair trading in the public interest". <====That says it all.
Simply put people, it says the EULA is useless in regards to limited liability and limited express warranty.
*******************************
EULA
2. Ownership of the Game Software
You agree and acknowledge that all title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights connected with the Game Software and any and all copies (in particular any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialogues, catch phrases, places, concepts, artwork, animation, sounds, music, audio-visual effects, text, methods of operation, moral rights and any related documentation) are owned by Sega or its licensors. The Game Software contains certain licensed materials and Sega's licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.
AND THE KEY HERE IS THIS CLAUSE:
Guarantees to title:
S5 THe Supplier has a right to sell the goods, Secondly, the goods are free from any undisclosed secuirty. Thirdly the consumer has the right to undistrurd possession of the goods.
READ AGAIN...........WE OWN OUR COPY IN UK, NZ AND AUST AND SASKATCHEN - CANNADA. NO LICENSE CRAP. because sega cannot by law impose one on us.
Authorities
Sale of Goods Act (UK)
Trade Practises Act (Aust)
Consumer Products Act (Sask)
Consumer Guarantees Act (NZ)
*******************************
EULA
3. Use of the Game Software
You agree to only use the Game Software or any part of it in a manner which is consistent with this License and you SHALL NOT:
(a) without the permission of Sega use the Game Software or any part of it for commercial use, for example use at a Internet cafe, computer gaming center or any other location-based site;
(b) without a further license, use the Game Software, or permit the use of the Game Software, on more than one computer, game console, handheld device or PDA at the same time;
(c) make copies of the Game Software or any part thereof;
(d) use the Game Software, or permit use of the Game Software, in a network, multi-user arrangement or remote access arrangement, including any online use, except as otherwise explicitly provided by Sega and subject to acceptance of the terms and conditions of use;
(e) sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer this Game Software or any copies without the express prior written consent of Sega;
(f) reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of the Game Software, in whole or in part unless provided for in section (j) below;
(g) remove, disable or circumvent any proprietary notices or labels contained on or within the Game Software;
(h) export or re-export the Game Software or any copy or adaptation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations; and
(i) create data or executable programs which mimic data or functionality in the Game Software unless provided for in section (j) below.
(j) use the part of the Game Software which allows you to construct new variations ("Editor") to create new levels which (i) can be used otherwise in connection with the Game Software; (ii) to modify any executable file; (iii) to produce any libelous, defamatory or other illegal material or material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of a third party; (iv) to use the trademarks, copyright or intellectual property rights of any third party; (v) are then commercially exploited by you (through pay-per-play or timesharing services or otherwise). For the avoidance of doubt you are solely liable and responsible for any claims by a third party resulting from your use of the Editor.
You agree to read and abide by the Game Disc Precautions and Maintenance Instructions and the Safety Information which is set out in the documentation accompanying the Game Software.
________________________
ANSWER:
WRONG, WE OWN IT we by law can do what we like. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, AN END USER PROSECUTED. because they cannot.
THe only time you can be prosecuted, is in regards to copyright of the material in the game. You cannot obviously copy the game, and sell those copies, it is illegal. But if you own a copy, you can use in your domestic use as you see fit, as long as you do not drive any money from it. Then you are not protected by any law, and you will face the crimmal law.
***************************************************
4. Warranty
The Game Software is provided without any warranties or guarantees save as specifically provided in these conditions and to the extent permitted by the applicable law.
This License does not affect your statutory rights as a consumer
_____________________
Sega breaking the law again? naughty naughty. I just told you, you cannot by law contract out, Justice J thomas told you that in regards to the fair trading act.
***********************************************
5. Liability
Sega will not be held responsible for the risks connected with lost profit, damage to property, lost data, loss of goodwill, console, computer or handheld device failure, errors and lost business or other information as a result of possession, use or malfunction of the Game Software, even if Sega has been advised of the possibility of such loss.
Sega will not be held liable for any damage, injury or loss if caused as a result of your negligence, accident or misuse, or if the Game Software has been modified in any manner (not by Sega) after it has been bought. Sega does not seek to exclude or limit its liability for any death or personal injury arising from its negligence.
Sega's liability shall not exceed the actual price paid for the Game Software.
If any of the conditions in this License are held to be invalid or void under any applicable law, the other provisions of these conditions will be unaffected and remain in full force and effect.
____________________________
ALREADY EXPLAINED, you telling lairs now Sega. Again,, Fair trading Act, and Consumer guarantees act of atlrast 7 countries.
:smash: so your conditions in your words are held, invaild, or void under applicable law.......now you admit finally you have no legal legs.
**********************************
6. Termination
In addition to other rights of Sega that may be available to it, this License will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with its terms and conditions. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Game Software and all of its component parts.
__________________________________________
SEGA, you cannot terminate something you have already sold. You no longer have title to it. By law, I already explained.
************************************
7. Injunction
Because Sega could be irreparably damaged if the terms of this License were not enforced, you acknowledge that Sega will take such action as may be required, including seeking an injunction and other equitable remedies, in addition to any other remedies available to it under the applicable law.
____________________________________
ROFLMAO, oh now you realise you have no rights.
**********************************
8. Indemnity
You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Sega, its partners, affiliates, contractors, officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from any claims, costs and expenses (including legal expenses) arising directly or indirectly from your acts and omissions to act in using the Game Software not in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
__________________________________________________
Indemnify? you cannot be indemnified by a consumer, you have no redress in which any law will permit you.
***********************************
9. Miscellaneous
This License together with the Subscriber Agreement that you will enter into if you wish to play the Game Software online represents the complete agreement between Sega and yourself in relation to the use of the Game Software and supersedes all prior agreements and representations, warranties or understandings (whether negligently or innocently made but excluding those made fraudulently).
If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable and the remaining provisions of this License shall not be affected.
Nothing in this License gives or claims to give to any third party any benefit or right to enforce any term of this License, and the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (as amended or modified from time to time) are expressly excluded.
This License is governed by the laws of England and is subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.
_____________________________________
Wrong again sega. you are only covered by online play. Then you have offer and acceptance. I have no contract with you.
No part of this agreement is enforceable.
*******************************
Don't Argue, I have given you the law above, it's not a discussion.
I openly challenge SEGA, here in public, I have on sold your games (Espeically the ones I don't like). I have used your?? So called catch pharses, what you trying to copyright the English language now?
I have My games installed on 3 computers in my house, so I have breached your so called License again, But their is no way the missus is getting on my computer, or the kids.
And I own my "copy". I dare you to try and sue me.
SO there you have it people, if you live in one of the above countries, you own your copy, it's not a license.
You have no contract with Sega, your contract was with the shopkeeper. Any conditions or limited warranties laid down by Sega or the EULA are useless, I Have publicly showen you that according to their fancy words, i have broken the agreement, and therefore can expect to be sued.....ROFLMAO......sued :laugh4:
Sorry I have legal title to my games. Only the poor buggers in the USA don't.
Post Scipto: SAPI, that enough for you? Or you want me to really spend some time quoting law? :whip:
For those that don't realise, this is not getting at Sega, or CA, I dearly love CA, hence I tell them off like the naughty children they are, when they do't put my toys in.
BUt people, the above is fact, And i standby my words, I dare anyone, to try and sue me for the above, becuase i know you cannot.
THe things that are enforceable: If you Breach copyright, CA have done some fantastic work, I personally would think it disgusting that some would rip off another persons hard work, And therefore agree with the copyright to stop them. Because without it, we don't get advancement, or development and we don't get our toys. So every time someone copies a game and passes it on, you are hurting us all.
But in regards to the rest, we have no contract with sega, we only have the law in regards to Copyright law. And we own our copy outright, we just don't own the rights to the game coding and such. That does belong to Sega.
Fenir
:smash:
Oh yeah baby I been bad:whip:
Well what TinCow posted would contradict you:
Quote:
Didz:
I talked to a contract law specialist and it seems we're both totally off-base. Consideration isn't required for the EULA because the EULA isn't a contract at all. It's a Licensing Agreement (Duh! ) which is simply the terms that the copyright holder imposes to allow the user to use the work. Since it is not a contract, it can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time. Licensing Agreements made with consideration (such as a specific payment to Microsoft to allow 50 copies of XP to be installed for business purposes) become valid contracts, but that is not the case for typical retail sale of games. MMOs demonstrate contractual licensing agreements, as the contract is directly with the publisher and a monthly fee is partly consideration for use of the work.
Essentially, when you buy the game in the store, you are simply purchasing the physical box, manual, and disk, not the right to use the work on the disk. In order to use the work, you then have to agree to the non-contractual EULA which can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time.
Obviously, the EULA itself cannot violate copyright or contract law, and any provisions in it that do so are invalid and non-binding. However, any terms that are otherwise construed as legitimate by the courts are binding as part of your agreement with the copyright holder to use the work. So, the real question is not whether the whole EULA is valid (which it generally is) but rather whether the individual clauses are unconscionable or otherwise in violation of the law.
Good thing I haven't been asked to write any contracts recently!
thanks fenir nie work so the law down under is pretty similar to the UK except for the US where the corporation is king :D
Lusted
Actually it doesn't, it is correct, EULA is only right in regards to Copyright. Which is protected by law anyway, therefore making the EULA useless. Anything else in it apart from copyright, is totally unenforceable.
Hence they put the disclaimer about it in Clause 5
Like I always said
fenir
Is there a limit on the number of times Kingdoms can be installed?
The reason I ask is that those people who write and test mods often have to do a clean install each time they test / play a new version of a mod.
If there's a problem here it won't show up immediately but may well in a few weeks time.
the answer is no, there is no limit, you can install it as many times as you like, but in a personal and domestic capacity.
in others words, you may not pass the game on to your friends computer if he has not got a legal copy. But their is no reason why you cannot install it as many times as you see fit, on your own computer.
You are only limited in regards to copyright material, ei: no coping, no selling or using game code without Sega's permission.
fenir
Correct, though fenir is mainly speaking about legal systems derived from English Common Law, it is fairly harmonious with US law. The nature of the EULA agreement essentially means one thing and one thing only: it gives the publisher the right to revoke your license to use the software if you do something they don't like. Piss off the publisher and they can legally remove your right to play the game. However, unless you actively break the law (i.e. copyright violation), they have no real ability to sue you or press criminal charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenir
At the same time, the publisher cannot legally disclaim away any rights that the user has under normal consumer protection, contracts, and copyright law. Just writing it down doesn't mean anything. It's like those notices in restaurant coat-check rooms ("Management is not responsible for lost or stolen articles."). They can say it as much as they want, but since they have no ability to disclaim away those rights, it will not be upheld in court.
Ok, I did had some more beer, then i got a little glint in my eye. :help:
I thought, why would someone revoke a license? Is there a set of grounds on which this could happen, or could this be a relevent factor in the right of code owner, ei; Sega.
Anyway, i did some digging, then I phoned my Father in law at the university, (he's the head of the Law faulty). :beam:
now you know why my A's leed to a good chat. Strange really, all the crazy profs at uni all have nice daughters. :yes:
It seems, that if sega did at some point try and pull the plug on it's license on the game usage, they would get a smack down.
It's a little grey, but it seems this would interferr with S5(1)(c) of the Consumer Act.
For Sega would be trying to stop the "undistrub possession of the good". And for the want of trying, I can not see anyway they can get out of it.
So Sega cannot pull someone's license, or "right to use the game", as long as you give them no legal cause. ei; Breach Copyright.
For Sega to have the ability to revoke your game license, you will first need to breach copyright, and then Sega would have to prove it.
So in essence, Sega must show just cause, to revoke your game usage. Otherwise they will be in breach of S5(1)(c).
Just some food for thought.
fenir :whip: oh baby, have i been bad?:inquisitive:
well have we got any word on if sega will relase an uninstaller for scurom. i really want kingdoms but i wont have it installing anything i cant remove on my pc.
A contract should also have legality of the purpose: Contracts for illegal goods, services, or for illegal purposes, are not enforceable.
Every clarification breeds new questions.Quote:
Don't Argue, I have given you the law above, it's not a discussion.
Arthur Bloch
-------------------------
Copyright: The Copyright Act accords protection to original literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works, as well as published editions of such works*. Literary work is defined to include computer programs**.
* Parts III and IV of the Copyright Act.
** Section 10 of the Copyright Act.
Copyright is infringed when a person who is not the copyright owner in Australia,
without the licence of the owner, does any act which the copyright owner has the
exclusive right to do***.
*** Subsections 36(1) and 101(1) of the Copyright Act.
Next!
An agreement to use not only the copyrighted material but also any trademarks, patents etc not covered by copyright acts (which by-the-way are not automatically and exclusively protected by law in all countries).
Software and pc games install a copy of the computer program on his or her computer so its only obvious that a license needs to be obtained to use the material. This is the exclusive right of the owners. No ifs or buts.
and for EU
Software is copyrightable in the European Union. Specifically, it is (with a few very limited exceptions) unlawful for anyone other than the owner of the rights to run the program, copy the program, modify the program or distribute the program, except with the permission of the rights owner.
"A guide to copyright license". Nov 2006
A statutory licence for the use of copyright material may be required and the amount of remuneration payable must be agreed with by copyright owner.
THE EULA
I,ve tried to explain earlier that its principal purpose is Intellectual property.
I did a search and can only find that it related to the issue of selling a listed poison with a registered pharmacist present.Quote:
Case law: Pharmaceutial Society of Great Britian v Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482
Smythe v Bayleys RealEstate Ltd I thought his was about a real estate agent who failed to pass on to prospective purchasers her knowledge that a tenant was in financial strife.Quote:
Authority: Smythe v Bayley's Real Estate Ltd (1993) 5 TCLR 454
Intellectual property such as trademarks and patents are also protected by laws and the owners may wish to remind users of this fact and any limitations associated with their use. Such infringements are usually considered more serious because they are the hallmarks of a business and usually have greater value.Quote:
WRONG, WE OWN IT we by law can do what we like. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, AN END USER PROSECUTED. because they cannot.The only time you can be prosecuted, is in regards to copyright of the material in the game.
Here's a few I found at wiki. As you can see most but not all are copyright associated. Its also been debated whether piracy is a copyright infringement.
"CD-R infringment" is the illegal copying of software using CD-R recording technology. This form of copyright infringement occurs when a person obtains a copy of a software program and makes a copy or copies and re-distributes them to friends.
"Commercial Use of Non-commercial Software" is using educational or other commercial-use-restricted software in violation of the software license is a form of copyright infringement.
"Counterfeiting" is the duplication and sale of unauthorized copies of software in such a manner as to try to pass off the illegal copy as if it were a legitimate copy produced or authorized by the legal publisher. This is also often a violation of trade mark laws.
"Hard-disk loading" occurs when an individual or company sells computers preloaded with illegal copies of software.
"Internet infringement" is the illegal uploading of software on to the Internet for anyone to copy.
"OEM infringement/unbundling" is known as OEM (original equipment manufacturer) software, is only legally sold with specified hardware. Whether misappropriating OEM software constitutes copyright infringement is subject to interpretation
"Softlifting" is a neologism invented by anti-copyright infringement advocates, and is a term used to describe when a person purchases a single licensed copy of a software program and loads it on several machines, in violation of the terms of the license agreement.
"Unrestricted client access infringement" occurs when a copy of a software program is copied onto an organization's servers and the organization's network "clients" are allowed to freely access the software in violation of the terms of the license agreement.
-----------------------
It seems that publishers use the same eula in all countries that was mostly written for the US and offering only language changes for the rest. This seems really reckless since it doesn't take it to consideration local laws and requirements.
What we need is a litmus test for someone to directly challenge a EULA. Volunteers anyone?Quote:
I openly challenge SEGA, here in public
I lost track of who's on what side. Lets see if I can sum this up (feel free to correct me of course).
Fenir's position: In those countries he names, buying software is similar to buying a book. One owns the book including the pages and ink with which the book is written but not the intellectual property ie the words and language etc. Similarly with software, one owns the disk and whats on it (the software) but not the intellectual property (which includes the software).
Nebu...........'s position: Software is different from a book. One owns the disk and package but not the software (code) since that is intrinsically entwined with intellectual property.
So when software that is quite possibly destructive is installed on your PC without your knowledge or permission is it better for the copyright holder to claim ownership or not ?
If that's the distinction then Nebuchadnezzar is entirely correct. I have to be honest, I find fenir's writing style very difficult to follow, so some of his point have simply been lost on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
The first example you give ("one owns the disk and whats on it (the software) but not the intellectual property (which includes the software)") is entirely fallacious, unless by "whats on [the disk]" you mean the actual divits that encode the 1s and 0s. Software has no actual existence as in a material form. It is the order in which the 1s and 0s are arranged that is copyrighted, not any particular method of storing or displaying them. Going back to the book analogy, you own the actual ink that the words are written in, but not the amorphous concept of arranging the ink in the proper fashion to spell out the words. It's the 'arrangement' itself which is the intellectual property.
Since the arrangement is impossible to link to a single material form (you can write binary in the dirt or with a sky-writing airplane), you cannot gain ownership over the arrangement by possessing a representation of it. Even if the arrangement is not owned by anyone (i.e. a work in the public domain, such as a Shakespeare play) you still do not own it. In that case, the only difference is that no one can stop you from using it in any way that you want to.
.....
I'm not even sure what we're discussing anymore; this is just IP 101. How does this relate back to Kingdoms and SecuROM?
I've read all eight pages now and I'm feeling a bit braindead, so please correct any mistakes I make here.
I have not yet purchased Kingdoms and am very unsure whether I will or not. I really want to check that I understand this stuff correctly before I make a purchase decision. I'll tag questions on the end, I'll even try and edit this post to take account of any mistakes I make when writing this that people correct me on, that way hopefully people can make sensible decisions about whether or not to purchase this product.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Securom does not uninstall when you uninstall the game. [stated all through this thread]
2) The copy of Securom provided with the game currently has no simple-to-use uninstallation tool. Contacting Securom with questions about the uninstallation procedure will get you an e-mail detailing a number of steps involving command lines. Following these steps will still not remove all traces of the software from your system.
3) While Securom is not a rootkit, in that it does not attempt to subvert your computer in any way, it does use much the same technology as a rootkit. The difference is principally that there is no malicious intent. (I'm not an expert on this, so please correct any mistakes)
4) While other versions of Securom are known to cause conflict with some other programs there's no confirmation as yet of the version shipping with Kingdoms causing conflicts.
5) The version of Securom that comes with the game neither requires an internet connection to allow you to install and play the game, nor does it limit the number of installs you make.
6) While Securom undoubtedly has security weaknesses (like pretty much every other piece of complex software) there are currently no known viruses or other malware that exploit any security weaknesses in Securom.
If there are any other pertinent facts that anyone sees I've missed then please post and detail them. If I've messed up in one of the above points then please correct me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Opinion:
OK, I'm going to say outright that there's no way I am going to buy this until I am certain that it will be possible to remove Securom from my system completely without having to hack my registry manually, or download some code of questionable integrity from a site of questionable integrity that promises to remove everything.
While I've done enough installs of Windows to not consider it more than an annoyance to reinstall the system it is still exactly that: an annoyance. Playing games shouldn't be annoying.
Quite honestly, I firmly believe that uninstalling the game software via the included uninstall option should completely remove all components of the software from my system, copy-protection software included. Exceptions to this would be allowing options to retain save games and custom content (because many users cannot navigate their way around their own filesystem to make backups). Everything else *should* be removed without question, particularly software that is known to cause conflicts with other software!
I think it's ridiculous that software is installed "on the quiet" and then cannot be uninstalled by any simple means. I have no issues with companies including some kind of DRM system with their products, as long as it does not infringe on my rights, but I'm not going to knowingly install anything on my machine that I cannot easily uninstall. Give me an uninstallation tool for Securom and I'll pay my money and play the game. Better yet, integrate uninstallation of the DRM software with the game uninstallation software and I'll actually be happy.
Vac
edited with updated info
Even with a removal tool to use after you have finished with and uninstalled the game, I can't see myself installing anything with potential back door and privacy issues onto my pc if I can avoid it, therefore sadly I find myself unable to play Kingdoms.
The one thing this thread tells us is how western legal codes have gotten far too bloated and complicated. It's a mess. No wonder your ordinary joe has to hire lawyers to figure out what on earth the laws mean.
Almost makes one pine for the days of hammurabi's code or the 10 commandments :p
Has anyone from CA or Sega commented yet about whether they'll either patch Kingdoms to remove SecureRom when uninstalling the game, or release a separate removal tool? I don't visit the .com forum (only have time for one) so I don't know if they've responded over there.
At this point, the silence is deafening. I know there must be many people here besides myself, who are waiting to buy Kingdoms until we hear from them about this.
Re: Vacuity:
1. Confirmed from multiple sources.
2. The steps listed in this thread as coming from the program's creator will not remove every trace of SecuRom. I don't know of a detailed procedure to remove all of the version that comes with Kingdoms, but the procedure for other games is complex and quite technical.
3. I'm no rootkit expert, but I'd say this is accurate.
4. The version of SecuRom that is installed with Kingdoms hasn't been confirmed to interfere with the use of any other applications. Conflicting reports exist here. Other versions of SecuRom clearly do make it difficult to run, for example, Daemon Tools.
5. Confirmed multiple times correct.
6. There's no way to know if this is true or not. There are no known mass abuses of the vulnerabilities SecuRom introduces to my knowledge.
My primary objection here is a consumerist one. Copyright law already protects Sony's rights here, and the SecuRom software places an unecessary burden on the purchaser for an increase in protection that has, at best, an extremely limited record of effectiveness. If I thought millions of people were stealing this game and that SecuRom could prevent it, I might be okay with it. In fact I think that this software might dissuade a few casual thieves about as effectively as older, safer forms of copy protection, but for the experienced ones who do the majority of the thievery it is completely meaningless and already broken.
My advice would be not to buy the game as a statement on the importance of your rights and the availability of other, high quality, and not risky or burdensome games.
:egypt:
Yes, thats what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Thats what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Hey, a complicated world requires complicated laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulstan
Well, Ive read about the first 15 or so posts in this thread and Im none the wiser really...
Someone correct me if Im wrong here-
This SecuRom stuff is supposed to prevent illegal copying of the game, correct?
This seems fair enough but what are the issues here? Is it the fact that it is installed on your machine somewhat 'quietly' shall we say? Or are there other issues?
Perhaps it would be mightly fine if a CA or Sega rep took the time to come and explain it all officially...
There are many CP methods that do all sorts of things "behind the scenes," but they're designed so that when you uninstall the game, any nastiness goes with them. The current version of SecureRom isn't like that. If you buy Kingdoms, then uninstall the game a year from now, it will leave behind hidden files that *may* cause problems with antivirus and anti-rootkit flagging software (even though it's not an actual rootkit), and that *may* be a security risk if some hacker figures out how to use it as a back door.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Not only are the files hidden, but you can't delete them by any normal means, short of just formatting the drive, which means re-installing Windows. To me, it's unacceptable for a mere game, as good as it may be, to treat my computer that way. When I uninstall a game, any copy protection should be uninstalled also, and not left behind as useless and potentially harmful garbage on my computer.
Thanks Ramses II,
I've updated the original post to take account of your info.
Vac
Tincow, Sorry if you couldn't follow my train of thought, it's a bit jumbled. :laugh4:
We have a big wedding coming up, so lots of people have been coming out of the wood work lately. Hence, We have been drinking quite a bit.
Then of course, i get home and go online........thats when all the trouble starts i think?:oops:
The general idea of what i have written is this.
The EULA is useless, in all three countries other laws take precedence. Copyright law, Intellectual Propertry Rights et cetera...
But anything in the EULA not connected to these two things has no legal standing. The License has no Legal standing because they are trying to distrub your possession. In other words, trying to impose upon your right of "shall enjoy", which is in the UK statute. Which the courts have deemed to be your quiet possession of future enjoyment of your good.
I should redo them, and post in a more coherent fashion. :idea2: NAH I wil have another beer first.
Ok EDIT: I posted and saw your post DiDz, nice way of putting it, ....See DIDZ gets it.........that begs the question? I must not be drunk enough?
fenir
Yes....I did realise that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
The issue then becomes where does the Licensor obtain the authority to issue the license, and more importantly on what grounds are the terms of the licence binding upon the licensee.
Under English Law a license is 'A power of authority to do some act which, without such authority, could not be lawfully done.' So, in order for a licence to have validity it must be shown that doing the act without it would render the licensee liable to prosecution.
Now, under contract law, the terms of a licence can form part of the contract and therefore acceptance of the terms of the licence would be binding upon the purchaser and failure to comply with those terms would then be a breach of contract. Therefore, a licence gains validity by being part of the contract.
However, as already explained ad-nausem, this is not the case with the EULA we all have to agree to during the installation process of our games. As this licence is only presented after the contract has been agreed over the shop counter.
So, the only other way a Licence can have validity is if it is supported by statute. For example, in the UK you need a driving licence to drive a car not becuase it forms part of your contract with the garage you bought the car from but because UK government legislation requires everyone to have a licence to drive. Likewise, you need a licence to photograph nesting birds for the same reason.
The question then is.....Is there a statute that requires us to have a licence to play a game?
The answer to this question may actually vary from country to country and in the USA even from state to state. However, UK law states that a Licence is only valid if the law states that doing an act without it would be a tresspass. (in other words illegal)
Now, it turns out that this is an area of some controversy. I've not been able to find any legislation on the UK statute books that makes it illegal to play a computer game without a licence. However, I did stumble across a very interesting article on this very problem in the USA.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement...9115577,00.htm
It appears that a group of lawyers acting for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), has been trying to force legislation through the US state legal system called the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (Ucita).
However, so far only Maryland and Virginia have enacted the law, whilst four states (Vermont, Iowa, West Virginia and North Carolina) have actually passed anti-Ucita laws designed to protect their citizens from its pro-corporate and anti-consumer terms.
At the same time the organisation Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions has formed a national coalition that opposes Ucita.
So, what this suggests to me is that, at present, at least, in both the Uk and most of the USA, the EULA which we have to click on to play our games has no legal validity and we are not bound by its terms.
The consequence being that as Securom is enforcing these terms, it is actually enforcing restrictions which were not part of the contract and therefore not legally binding. Therefore, SecuRom could be acting illegally in placing restrictions on the consumer which the consumer did not agree to, and was not made aware of at time of pruchase.
It will actually be interesting to see what happens if a customer actually goes to court over this.
PS. Just noticed that Fenir (below) has come to about the same conclusion.
The issue really is that software companies do NOT need SecuRom to prevent illegal copying of the game....and that it doesn't actually do that anyway as its already been by-passed by professional crack companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
The issue is that SecuRom can do a lot more than just that and that once its on your PC it can be explioted both by its owners and others that Sony licence to use it in order to spy upon your activites and to mess with your PC.
It is also potentially an open door through which other less well intentioned people could gain access directly to your PC and by-pass your firewall and anti-virus protection.
Nebuchadnezzar,
Most of that was copied word for word from those case laws I gave you. ANd the Precedence they set, and the accepted judgements of those cases.
I hereby asked anyone who has been to university in those countries, to check those facts, and the that those case laws, set the precedence that i have listed.
Case law: Pharmaceutial Society of Great Britian v Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482
IS the teaching case law of Contract laws Offer to treat example. Is quoted in first year University contract law along with fisher.
The Coruse they treach is called ComL 203 Law of Commerce.
***************************
Smythe v Bayleys RealEstate Ltd -- The what? .............aaahhh you have never studied law :beam:
ROFLMAO, That case is about a legal point of law. Yes you are sort of correct in your understnading of it. but the point of the legal judgement following that case, that became a pillar of the law.
Is that because they didn't tell them, and because they tried to claim that they had an agreement, to "contract" out of the fair trading act. Which was the whole point.
The judgement came down against them, because justice J thomas said you cannot contract out of fair trading practises when they are in the public interest.
That was the whole arguement of the case, it has nothign to do with their personal money status, and if you had done first year law at university, you would have found that out. PS: See Butterowrth commercial law teaching law, it's listed in the front, i'm sure you can find it. :book:
Simply put, I said all along, the EULA means nothing, except where dealing with copyright. And those laws are already enforce, and therefore trump the Eula again.
So we agree on the same points, but to become insulting?
Mine was a joking example of the EULA being ineffective. Had notihng to do with attacking Copyright and intellectual property rights which are already enshrined in law. I was supporting them.
Ok I could go on, but it is really boring me.
Mainly because you have insulted me, you quoted the wiki? How deeming :shame: The great internet of disinformation. And i gave you the legal position of those laws as well.
omg, the wiki? I quote the law, and you quote opinion?
I have been in volved in contract law since leaving the army and going to university.
I was an accountant for westpac Head office.
And later, as now, started my own company. To which I forefill, and conduct contracts all day, everyday.
So after two degrees and a professional post grad Diploma in Professional Accy, I of course, admit to you Nebuchadnezzar, I know nothing of the law of commerce. And i humbly bow to your great wisdom. And I only wish that my years studing under the Law Lord, Lord Cook of Thorndon, had some effect upon me.
I am sorry to have troubled you.
sincerely (not) fenir
Bugger, I might have to get a job as a street sweeper.
For my 2cents didz is and has been one of the more credable forum members we have had since STW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
If any part of what he is saying above is true, I wont get it. I normally wait for patches and mods anyway to fix the ridiculous balance issues, but this kind of kills it for this consumer.
Hopefully others take note before purchase.
Cheers for the clarification...if this really is the case then I would again call for someone from CA or Sega to get their asses in here and explain why they are using such questionable products- and more importantly-if they are prepared to actually do anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I'm more than a little irritated that neither CA nor SEGA can be bothered to give an explanation of why they're treating their paying customers like common thieves. My order for Kingdoms remains cancelled. It's bad enough that I have one rootkit on my computer thanks to their patch 1.2; they really didn't have to add another one with Kingdoms.