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'."
just logins and passwords your password is your own property
An EULA held up in court, despite the fact that no one ever signed anything, and there were no witnesses... this sounds like a really bad ruling. My guess is that it will be appealed, and eventually struck down. Either way, I think this case is going to be big...
I'm not sure how that article made it to Slashdot. That was one helluva weak article. It might have helped if it had some information other than 'bevaaare!'
Just because the Judge ruled that they do, in fact own all the 'virtual property' in the world (and why shouldn't they? its all just bits on the harddrive in their server) doesn't really say anything about the general applicability of EULAs. The time to start worrying is when some ridiculous clause of a EULA (Microsoft..Most P2P software) is broken and enforced, not when something that seems pretty much like common sense is enforced (regardless of whether it was mentioned in the EULA....)
What a weak article. I don't know this site, but it seems to me as if it is targeted to younglings discovering life. It belongs to the 12-years old crowd, not Slashdot.
Why is it that you have to purchase the software to read the EULA. What if you don't agree with it and refuse to use it at that point out of spite. You've already opened the package and can't get your money back usually. I just don't get it, never have.
That's not what is meant by "consideration." When the term is used in a legal sense, it refers not to the amount of attention that a party gives to the contract before consenting to be bound by its terms; rather, consideration is the object of the exchange. For example, if I purchase a sack of potatoes from you in exchange for a red scarf, there is consideration. If I state that I will give you a sack of potatoes in exchange for nothing -- or, alternatively, in exchange for your agreement that you would do something that you already were legally bound to do, like obey the law -- then there is no consideration and our agreement (such that it is) is not binding upon us.
Some of the dumber EULA are sure to be thrown out. Is anyone really going to enforce the "you can't say bad things about M$ with front page" term? Good freaking luck. They might be able to take away that horrible program from you but they can't keep you from telling the world how much they suck.
Privacy is a real concern. The XP EULA grant's M$ the ability to search your computer. You had better believe they already do and will continue to do it. They even changed up their hotmail junk so they could spam you all the way to China. Kazza's gonna sell your cycles to Iraq for wepons development, well I don't think so.
These are all violations of your property and patience, but God help them if they actually break things in a way that lawers can understand. The waste M$ inflicts is huge, some starving lawyer is just waiting to pounce on it. Then poof, the proven illegal monopoly is going to actually pay.
My contracts with M$hit expired a long time ago and I'm much happier for it. You see freedom from all these abuses is closer than you think. Do something good for yourself and dump that privacy invading, insecure,unstable, advert laden junk. The power ends when you don't need it.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
"Most users in this world are tied to a certain operating system (due to the simple lack of equally user-friendly alternatives), and software that comes bundled with it."
They may prefer it, but they aren't "tied" to it. They are free to learn to use one of the alternatives (and this is the first I've seen someone label the Mac "less user friendly").
"Many users are also tied to specific software that they use at work."
Then it is the employer that is bound by the EULA, not the individual.
"If I like Quake, but not the EULA that id software dishes out, I'd probably sign up and play, for the simple reason..."
...that you don't dislike the EULA enough to give up Quake to avoid it. Thus, you _chose_ to accept the EULA.
"Just what purpose does reading the EULA serve,..."
It tells you what you are getting into, should you choose to accept it.
"...when pressing the "I Decline" button is simply not an alternative?"
There is always an alternative. You aren't going to starve to death or die of exposure just because you choose not to use some particular piece of software.
"The root of the problem here is that every single piece of software is a little monopoly..."
None of the software on my computer is a monopoly of any kind.
"You'll usually be able to find two boxes of cereal with similar taste, manufactured by two different corporations."
Many people say otherwise. They insist that there is absolutely no acceptable substitute for the Exploding CatHead(TM) cereal they saw on the morning cartoons. Most of these people are under 10 years old. Sometimes I suspect that most computer users are of a similar mental age.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Ok, I'll take a stab at telling you why EULAs are bad.
1. You don't sign an EULA. In order for a contract to be valid it must be signed by both parties and the original must be given to the End User. There is no reason Microsoft couldn't release Digital Sig 1.0 today and require that a EULA have a valid sig. If you wonder why the YES/NO thing is bad, as yourself who installed your mom's software. If a third party installs software for your mom and clicks yes, should she be held accountable for an agreement she never saw? Or is the third party the one bound to the EULA?
2. EULAs are not easy to understand by common sense. If I buy a car, I can use it anywhere. I can let anyone ride in my car. I can let anyone borrow my car. Why is a Win98 disk any different? You can say that the disk is easy to copy and the car is not. That is a major factor, but I don't think the prob should be solved under legal terms. Agian, Digital Sig 1.0 could be used to authenticate a user's sig agianst a product code and compare them with a MD5 on a server at Redmond. Why haven't they done that already? If I was into conspericaies, I'd say it's because MS wants you to be doing something illegal. That way, they control you.
3. The terms of the EULA are subject to change after you agree. Right there, the whole legality of the system comes crashing down. If you and I agree to meet at 4:30pm at the MS Campus, and I show up at 6:30, who's the asshole? Well, seeing as how I changed the meeting time and posted the change on the back door of my house, you would be the asshole for not checking to see if the time had been changed. Also, what gives one party the right to change a contract and not the other. As of now, I am changing the EULA of my copy of Win2k to reflect that it is now covered under the GNU/GPL. Is that legal? After all, MS has been given notice of the change(in this forum).
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
If you don't accept the GPL, then all of the extra rights the GPL gives to you (using the source, distributing copies, etc.) are not granted and the software is covered under copyright law. So using the source code in any way or redistributing the software without the author's permission is coyright infringment ("piracy").
IANAL - but the above contents are a summary explaining your invalid argument which I found somewhere written by the FSF
Okay, if "EULAs are contracts at the moment they are accepted", then where is the consideration? A contract is not valid without consideration.
I've already paid for the software (if it needs to be paid for), and I already have the right to use the software (according to copyright law). Just what is it that the company is giving me and what am I agreeing to give to them?
Of course, in Mythic's case, there is consideration. You don't have the right to use their server, so that is something you gain. But in the case of regular everyday EULAs, they're bogus.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Nah, the courts are that crazy. If a company (Tobacco and firearms manufactures to be specific here--not trying to beat around the bush) can be held responsible for the actions of an informed individual (ie: knows that guns kill, tobacco is a known carcinogen, other common sense bullshit, etc.), then I don't see it very far off for courts to make parents responsible for some minors' actions. I'm sure that many lawyers would jump at the idea--if it was monetairly rewarding enough for them.
Untill then, they'll volture over old ladies driving with hot coffee obtained from multi-billion dollar international conglomerates...
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Bang on. Its worth adding that from the skimpy info in the article, it appears the judge did not rule on the overall validity of EULAs. Blacksnow, after all, was not a party to the EULA. The EULA governs the relationship between Mystic and their users. What it does or does not mean is irrelevant to the issue. Its mere existence defines Blacksnow as a third party, and so without legal standing to alter the contractual relationship.
Think of it this way. I buy a burger from Wendy's. If I don't like it, I can bring it back. But I can't sell the right to bring it back to someone else for use on a different burger. The "contract" is between Wendy's and me, and applies to that burger. I can still dispute with Wendy's about replace vs. refund, or if there is really something wrong with the burger, so the existence of the contract and its validity are two separate issues.
From the court, we find that the owners of Blacksnow did their trading in game. Now, argue all you like about most people not reading the EULA, but professional traders have no excuse for not reading it.
As regarding whether they did or not, and whether they clicked through and agreed to it, remember that this is civil litigation. The burden of proof is not beyond all reasonable doubt, but rather balance of probabilities. In deciding what is fact, the court only has to consider the most likely scenario. And the most likely scenario is that Blacksnow (if not the players) did read (or should have read) and did agree to the EULA. If they didn't, then the burden is on them to show that.
Also note that the issue is about the actions that they chose to perform on the service, not what use they made of the software.
Given all this, it looks pretty clear cut that Mythic are right, and Blacksnow are wrong. My only problem with this is that it feels wrong. Effectively, Mythic are saying that they have complete control over everything that happens on their servers, and that they will be the final arbitrator on who did what - and more importantly, why they did it.
The reason that this last point is important is that from the point of view of Mythic, what's the difference between these actions?
The answer is that from Mythic's point of view, there is no difference. The action that Mythic sees is: Player X wants to drop a Sword of Boinking.
Now, Mythic get to decide what the motivation was behind this action, and to punish me or terminate my account without possibility of appeal. In the case of Blacksnow, it looks clear cut, but that's because Blacksnow have been decent enough to be above board about what they have been doing. But now the precedent is set that Mythic and other online services can charge money to access content that they control and can deny access to at any time for any reason that they like, and your option is to suck it up or... actually, there is no "or".
Is that just? Well, actually yes, because it's Mythic's service, they can set the rules, and nobody is forced to play it. Is it enforcable? Demonstrably, yes. Does this kind of control freakery damage online games? Not really, it's rampant on EQ (down to them enforcing their own particular view on what's an appropriate "fantasy genre but non trademarked" name), but that's still going strong.
But does it feel right? Hell, no. Is there anything that we can do about it? Probably not. I wouldn't play such a horribly restrictive game in the first place, and so I don't even have the meagre threat of withholding my money, but the plain old fact is that most players simply don't know and don't care (enough) about it to leave. So, by the Great and Powerful Laws of Capitalism, Mythic is in the right here, and will continue to remain so until the money stops flowing in.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Stores do not like unhappy customers. Better have a lawyer to protect your rights, because they store is likely to call the police for crowd control and have you guys bused off to the station for processing.
It seems expensive to fight big companies.