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'."
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.
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.
I think you misunderstood my point. Character data for the game world would continue to be hosted on the Mythic server. However, Mythic would send a copy of the savegame file for the plaintiff to him. They would then remove that savegame from the server.
The result is that the plaintiff has a copy of his character's data (i.e. the information that is the basis of the lawsuit), but the character's data no longer exists on the Mythic server and thus no longer exists in the Mythic game world. The plaintiff would have all the bits that made up his or her character, but it'd be utterly worthless as said bits would no longer affect anything.
The beauty of it is that it underscores the entire problem of the suit. The suit wasn't about knowing or copying certain data or even owning an exclusive copy of certain data, but rather about insisting that the certain data exist in a very specific place on Mythic-owned server. Since attempting to control someone else's server in that manner is somewhat ludicrous, the complain was disguished in the form of data ownership. But if that were the case, Mythic could merely hand over the data and wash its hands of the matter as I've explained above.
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.