lskovlund writes "The ScummVM developers have received notice that their use of PayPal for donations is in violation of PayPal's AUP. According to a forum post, the AUP bans 'Game enhancers (which enable the play of import software and/or back up versions of software).'"
"Backup copies"
by
unfunk
·
· Score: 4, Informative
well, ScummVM certainly doesn't allow me to play my "backup version" of Day of the Tentacle - the copy protection quiz is there in full effect:(
Re:"Backup copies"
by
fuzzix
·
· Score: 4, Informative
well, ScummVM certainly doesn't allow me to play my "backup version" of Day of the Tentacle - the copy protection quiz is there in full effect:(
ScummVM is also distributed with Broken Sword I & II these days. It must be the easiest way to run these games on modern Windows systems. Games such as Beneath a Steel Sky and Flight of the Amazon Queen have been released as freeware specifically to show off the capabilities of ScummVM and rekindle interest in these classic point-and-click adventures.
I'd consider that "official endorsment" from the original creators of these games. It's not like the situation with Nintendo, who have spoken out against emulation as bad and evil and wrong and causes cancer - I assume this is the attitude which gave rise to Paypal's policy. ScummVM is a useful project with industry acceptance and the backing of the companies whose software it enables. It might behoove the original authors of the games to petition Paypal about their policy in this case - I've bought several LucasArts games to play on ScummVM and I reckon others have done the same. If ScummVM didn't exist it might not be so easy to run these games on my platform of choice and I wouldn't have bothered.
So switch to another service
by
Colin+Smith
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Nochex, worldpay or whatever.
-- Deleted
Why ??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This is like VISA or mastercard all of a sudden decide that you can no longer by porn with their cards ?? make very little bussiness sense to me.
That PayPal enforce some arbitrary set of rules and close accounts is not news (not for several years).
That they didn't confiscate the funds for once (?) maybe is...
I've about had it with PayPal
by
MarkusQ
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've about had it with PayPal. They want to have it both ways--they want to be the blameless intermediary who can not be held responsible for what their customers do (in essence, a bank), yet they want to meddle in every transaction, and pass judgment on issues that are none of their business just because they hold the money.
With a credit card company, at least they have the argument that--until you pay them back--it's their money on the line.
Note that no laws are being broken, and so far as I can see no one even complained. This is as bad as a bank deciding that they didn't want to cash valid checks for some people because "we don't like your kind around here."
--MarkusQ
Re:I've about had it with PayPal
by
Jeff+DeMaagd
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
With a credit card company, at least they have the argument that--until you pay them back--it's their money on the line.
Sorry, I really don't believe credit card companies don't work that way. They just take the money. The impressions one might get on the "Internet" gives the impression that credit card companies are these angels and PayPal are demons, but the only difference is that CC companies are regulated, otherwise they would be worse than Paypal.
If you are a merchant and there is a dispute, they can and will effectively remove money from your checking account and then they might be nice enough tell you they did it afterwards. It doesn't matter to them if you shipped a big item after you got an authorization, they can revoke the authorization anyway, even if you had the best intentions. This happened to my parents. Thankfully the buyer was honest and said that the transaction was legitimate, so they got their money.
Also, if they authorize a transaction and it turns out to be fraudulent on the part of the buyer where the merchant acts in good faith to verify the card. The credit card companies will still just take the money from the merchant. If you don't have the money, they can just sue you. I had a friend who basically had the CC companies basically sue him out of business because of one large transaction that went bad.
Other stuff that's against the AUP
by
tomhudson
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If feeBay wants to be consistent (ha - fat chance), they would have to ban a lot more stuff:
"Game enhancers (which enable the play of import software and/or back up versions of software).'"
They'd have to ban the sale of all new and used laptops, desktops, and game consoles - people use these all the time to play backups.
BTW, "the play of import software" - so imported software is a no-no, but domestic software is okay?
Choosing PayPal is a fault
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
PayPal is not a bank. They can practically freeze your account (and money) indefinitely and no regulation can stop them from doing so.
I really wish Sourceforge (which is also owned by OSTG like Slashdot) would stop supporting PayPal and choose a more reliable service to handle project donations
Don't trust your money to PayPal. All regulations that keep regular banks from just stealing from you do not apply for PayPal.
More true than you'd know, actually. Using the google suite of checkout (which, afaik, can be used for donations) and adsense can completely replace HTML for these people. Heck, they're even getting more bang for the donation buck if they use the google service.
PayPal needs to realize that they're no longer the only service avaiable - instead of instituting a boycott based on their personal morality, they're simply driving people to a competing service.
I would think that this also opens up an entirely new can of worms - although I'm sure that paypal has the right to do whatever the hell they want short of taking all your cash, if they keep making moves like this, THEY may end up liable for what their service is used for. They can't really have it both ways - either they're a common, undescriminating service, or they're suddenly accountable for everyone.
but the only difference is that CC companies are regulated, otherwise they would be worse than Paypal.
Agreed. Thus my point about them wanting to have it both ways. I used to have friends who worked for PayPal, and have a tenancy towards "let the market deal with it" solutions, but there comes a point where you're engaging in fraudulent practices and should be reined in.
Either they aren't a bank, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to do banking, or they are, and they should have to play be the same rules as regular backs. Which, among other things, can't decide not to honor payments just because they don't like you.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I'm no fan of credit card companies either. Or loan sharks, or venture capitalists.
Very Few Options
by
Kagato
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I feel bad for the guys. The problem they are going to run into is that PayPal, for all that is evil about them, does one this really well. Running donation payment processing.
While they can look for alternitive payment systems, they will run into the issue that Donation systems have extremely high fraud rates. Why? Because donations have very little anti-fraud proceedures. So they are a megnet for people who want to test stolen credit card numbers out on. Most merchant solutions will shut you down if you hit 1-2% fraud against all your transaction rate. Since PayPal was both an aquiring bank, and payment processor, they were able to side step a lot of that. As well as set up a lot of anti-fraud stuff that kicked in before the merchant even noticed.
ScummVMs Appeal to Paypal
by
Ndr_Amigo
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I didn't expect this to hit Slashdot, so we were a bit unprepared for the amount of feedback:)
But yeah, its all legal and above board. A project like ScummVM isn't really something anyone would expect Paypal to take issue with:)
For those that like reading about lost causes, heres our (denied) appeal (including Paypals initial complaint and the response to our appeal).
Slashdot Mirror
well, ScummVM certainly doesn't allow me to play my "backup version" of Day of the Tentacle - the copy protection quiz is there in full effect :(
Nochex, worldpay or whatever.
Deleted
This is like VISA or mastercard all of a sudden decide that you can no longer by porn with their cards ?? make very little bussiness sense to me.
That PayPal enforce some arbitrary set of rules and close accounts is not news (not for several years). That they didn't confiscate the funds for once (?) maybe is...
I've about had it with PayPal. They want to have it both ways--they want to be the blameless intermediary who can not be held responsible for what their customers do (in essence, a bank), yet they want to meddle in every transaction, and pass judgment on issues that are none of their business just because they hold the money.
With a credit card company, at least they have the argument that--until you pay them back--it's their money on the line.
Note that no laws are being broken, and so far as I can see no one even complained. This is as bad as a bank deciding that they didn't want to cash valid checks for some people because "we don't like your kind around here."
--MarkusQ
If feeBay wants to be consistent (ha - fat chance), they would have to ban a lot more stuff:
"Game enhancers (which enable the play of import software and/or back up versions of software).'"
They'd have to ban the sale of all new and used laptops, desktops, and game consoles - people use these all the time to play backups.
BTW, "the play of import software" - so imported software is a no-no, but domestic software is okay?
PayPal is not a bank. They can practically freeze your account (and money) indefinitely and no regulation can stop them from doing so.
Just go to http://www.paypalsucks.com/ and see how often they've done that in the past.
I really wish Sourceforge (which is also owned by OSTG like Slashdot) would stop supporting PayPal and choose a more reliable service to handle project donations
Don't trust your money to PayPal. All regulations that keep regular banks from just stealing from you do not apply for PayPal.
More true than you'd know, actually. Using the google suite of checkout (which, afaik, can be used for donations) and adsense can completely replace HTML for these people. Heck, they're even getting more bang for the donation buck if they use the google service.
PayPal needs to realize that they're no longer the only service avaiable - instead of instituting a boycott based on their personal morality, they're simply driving people to a competing service.
I would think that this also opens up an entirely new can of worms - although I'm sure that paypal has the right to do whatever the hell they want short of taking all your cash, if they keep making moves like this, THEY may end up liable for what their service is used for. They can't really have it both ways - either they're a common, undescriminating service, or they're suddenly accountable for everyone.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Agreed. Thus my point about them wanting to have it both ways. I used to have friends who worked for PayPal, and have a tenancy towards "let the market deal with it" solutions, but there comes a point where you're engaging in fraudulent practices and should be reined in.
Either they aren't a bank, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to do banking, or they are, and they should have to play be the same rules as regular backs. Which, among other things, can't decide not to honor payments just because they don't like you.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I'm no fan of credit card companies either. Or loan sharks, or venture capitalists.
Dear PayPal
Oh yeah! You fight like a cow!
Love
Your friends at ScummVM
I feel bad for the guys. The problem they are going to run into is that PayPal, for all that is evil about them, does one this really well. Running donation payment processing.
While they can look for alternitive payment systems, they will run into the issue that Donation systems have extremely high fraud rates. Why? Because donations have very little anti-fraud proceedures. So they are a megnet for people who want to test stolen credit card numbers out on. Most merchant solutions will shut you down if you hit 1-2% fraud against all your transaction rate. Since PayPal was both an aquiring bank, and payment processor, they were able to side step a lot of that. As well as set up a lot of anti-fraud stuff that kicked in before the merchant even noticed.
I didn't expect this to hit Slashdot, so we were a bit unprepared for the amount of feedback :)
But yeah, its all legal and above board. A project like ScummVM isn't really something anyone would expect Paypal to take issue with :)
For those that like reading about lost causes, heres our (denied) appeal (including Paypals initial complaint and the response to our appeal).