Slashdot Mirror
Selling Your (MMORPG) Soul
Gnpatton writes: "Here is an article about the recent ruling in the Blacksnow/Mythic case. It talks about the EULA (End User Licence Agreement, that thing that you never read) and about how this case might affect the rest of the software industry, not just with game companies. From now on, you might just want to read the EULA before you click 'accept'."
what about contracts with minors? in most states, if not all, a minor my default on any contract he/she so chooses. which is why most places will not sell big ticket items such as houses, cars, loans, etc to minors. So how does a EULA apply to a minor that leagle purcahsed a software product and clicked agree and then decied to default on said contract?
Unlike other EULA's, MMORPGs repeat their EULA's every time a user connects to play the game. In Dark Age of Camelot, the EULA pops up when you log in, and to continue, you have to accept the EULA.
Typically, anyone playing MMORPGs sees the EULA enough and is given the chance to NOT play the game if they disagree with the terms.
Contrast this with the typical software package that makes you agree to the EULA without actually seeing it in most cases, and even before you install the software on your computer.
Everquest has similar provisions (as will Neverwinter Nights, I would assume).
Here is the important passage from DAoC:
* You acknowledge and agree that all characters created, and items acquired and developed as a result of game play are part of the Software and Game and are the sole property of Mythic. You acknowledge that: (i) the Software and the Service permit access to Content that is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights owned by Mythic as covered in Section 3 below.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
A few points about this decision bear repeating.
First, the jurisdiction of the court: the case was decided by a federal district court, a trial judge within the federal system. The Northern District of California, where the case was decided, is well respected for its expertise in matters of technology, having been the site of several important IP lawsuits and serving currently as the home to Silicon Valley. That said, the decision is binding authority only in the Northern District of California (although courts in other parts of the country may find it persuasive), and it has not been tested on appeal.
Second, the implications of the decision: the court did not decide the validity of a generally applicable statute or a regulation; it only ruled that in the facts of this case, the EULA was not procedurally deficient (for failing to give the user notice of its terms, for example) and was not substantively unreasonable (for imposing any terms that were fundamentally unfair, for example). The courts decide thousands of cases interpreting contracts each year, and they often do so by analogy to precedent. Accordingly, this decision might have no immediate impact upon the way you use software or review an EULA, but so long as this issue recurs, other judges likely will use the opinion in this case as the standard that they accept or from which they find reason to depart.
Third, the mutability of the decision: contract law is mostly state law, and most judicial decisions about the law of contracts may be overturned by the legislature. In the fields of, for example, sales, financing, and construction law, there have been enough disputes across many jurisdictions that most states have found it beneficial to enact a uniform law governing the rights of contracting parties. (The Uniform Commercial Code is the best known example of this.) Should this be a sufficiently momentous decision -- I don't think it is -- or become a sufficiently important issue -- and maybe it will -- then one can count upon the legislatures and the law professors to get involved.
Where the hell do you shop?. I work for Target Corp., and we do NOT accept returns on software (also CDs and DVDs) that have been opened. Period. Sure, if its damaged, we'll give you a new one. But if you simply don't want it, you're SOL. Once you break that seal, you're screwed. I suspect other large retailers have adopted similar policies, although I'm not sure. Anybody else know?
No it's not. The so-called EULAs require you to accept their terms as a condition of using the software. They start off with the presumption that you have no rights whatsoever and they "grant" you the right to use the software on very restrictive conditions. That of course is nonsense -- you have the right to use the software by the virtue of having bought a copy of it, so in reality, these EULAs take away the rights you normally have.
GPL does no such thing. You are not required to agree to anything if you want to use the software. GPL starts off with the (correct) presumption that you already have this right. However, you do not normally have the right to distribute the software if you do not hold the copyright on it. GPL grants you this right, provided that you agree to its conditions.
This decision will have no effect on the enforcibility of the GPL. The so-called EULAs, however, have always been on a shaky legal ground. It remains to be seen what effect this decision will have.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.