Slashdot Mirror
On MMOs, EULAs, Other Legal Shenanigans
Garthilk writes "In an interesting Q&A over at Okratas.com, they pose some questions for MMO-related lawyer Don Shelkey. Don is a lawyer with Buchanan Ingersoll PC, one of the largest 110 law firms in the nation, who represent many videogame developers on legal matters. Don explains what exactly Technology Transactions are, how EULAs protect the developers, virtual property law and a little about his work with Sigil Games regarding Vanguard: Saga of Heroes." Shelkey, himself a rabid online gamer, argues of MMOs: "EULAs [End User License Agreements attached when you buy a game] are enforceable contracts and there is nothing to indicate that a clause prohibiting the sale of online goods wouldn't be enforced. So, courts should enforce the EULA in the company's favor based on a breach of contract if the company were to proceed to trial on the matter."
Which should tell you all you need to know about why this guy strongly believes in the power of EULAs: he's paid to.
Whether or not they are technically enforceable is mostly irrelevant, because when a company brings out the lawyers most people choose to cave in rather than deal with the 5+ digit lawsuit costs and associated headaches. So maybe they can be considered enforceable by the fact few can put up a defense (enforceability by fiat?)
(I am not a lawyer; this is not intended as advice in any way, shape, or form)
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Actually, an EULA is an agreement, not just a license (End User License Agreement). Simply put, it is the agreement by the user to adhere to the license. When the user agrees to adhere to the license, it becomes a contract between the parties because the agreement was accepted by both. Therefore, he is correct in stating that it is a binding contract.
First, how is it a contract if I didn't sign it?
Because signatures are not required to have contracts. This should come as no surprise; people make enforcible verbal contracts routinely.
This is probably an adhesive contract, but those are generally perfectly valid.
Also, I'm a minor, how can I legally "sign" a contract?
By agreeing to it. Minors DO have the power to form contracts. The special treatment for minors is NOT that they aren't allowed to contract (for they are) but that minors can, if they choose, escape enforcement of contracts against them for anything other than necessities. This means that a minor can contract to, say, buy a car, and then can sue to ensure that the car is delivered to him, but cannot be sued to force him to pay for it. OTOH if it were a contract for food, he could be sued, since that's a necessity, and we want people to be willing to sell necessities to minors.
However, minors that avoid contracts they've made are generally under an equitable obligation to return goods, or value, to the other party so that they are not unjustly enriched by their special status. Also contracts you make as a minor but don't avoid by the age of majority are basically ratified and become completely binding.
People who say minors can't contract (in the US at least) simply don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Hell, you could even get your 4 year old daughter to click through the EULA for you.
Why? When you tell someone else to agree for you, it's still ultimately you that agreed.
Here is a good rule of thumb for legal situations: Do not be clever. Do not do clever things. Do not try to get away with stuff by adhering to the letter of the law in a patently transparent way. This is because no one is really as stupid as you must think they are if you think that will work, and it will in fact NEVER work.
As has been said, "the law is not an ass," and it will not only STILL get you when you're being clever, you will have only pissed it off and made things worse for yourself.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
But see, there's a problem here. That it's a game doesn't it stop from being something you bought. If you go to Disneyland, and they fail to deliver the entertainment you bought from them, by say, having all attractions broken, or suddenly closing 5 minutes after you paid for the ticket, I'd consider it perfectly reasonable to ask your money back.
The same way, if Everkill consist in killing things to get magical items, and you lose that to a crash, you could quite successfully argue that you didn't get what you paid for. While a server crash that causes you to lose your +10 Sword of Banishment, which took you a month to get probably won't be compensated with $1000, you probably could reasonably argue that a crash that erased a month of progress in the game should entitle you to get a month of payment back.
This goes completely against games with "virtual" economies. Players with deep pockets will tend to own more property, have better items, and eventually social stature. Why duplicate real life by unbalancing your game with such a destructive force. Not all game companies are in it for the money.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Because signatures are not required to have contracts.
Poorly phrased, but true. However, contracts are required to have several things, including a meeting of the minds and an exchange of value. EULAs do not give, they simply take, so the latter is not present. If there is no meeting of the minds, I should be able to continue as I would have otherwise. However, refusing to accept an EULA agreement generally prohibits me from using software I've already purchased, and which a vendor may not agree to let me return once opened. Even if the vendor will take it back, I may have shipping or transportation costs which they will not refund.
No, EULAs are corporations trying to pervert the laws to their own ends, breaking principles of law that have lasted hundreds of years in the process.
Note that if software companies want to add EULA restrictions, they have a perfectly reasonable way to so: sell their software over the web. As long as the EULA provisions are presented prior to purchase, all the general principles of contract are there, and purchasing shows consent. But this lazy BS that they should be able to pervert contract principles in a commercial sale through a third party should die a painful death.
IANAL, but if one could still read for the bar, I might try.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.