>If I rememeber correctly they don't assume any >at all. All 'AT YOUR OWN RISK', "NO WARRANTIES, >EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED"
That is why it is so good that many countries have consumer related laws that won't allow such a thing. So, yes, they can still be liable in many ways.
>In the United States, clicking is sufficient, >barring certain exceptions.
So what IS acceptable? Can the condition be that you walk out of your house? That you brush your teeth? Is there no requirement of for your acceptance to reach the one making the offer? That would mean you thinking of agreeing actually constitute a contract and so on. SO what exactly IS the criteria?
>If, in your country, clicking is not sufficient >to form a legal agreement, then the whole >argument is moot, because if you can't agree to >the EULA, then you are legally not permitted to >use the software at all.
Ehh, what law would forbid that? What law makes it not legally permitted? None! So you CAN use it even without the agreement.
>So the individual may buy the game and get some >privelidges, they do NOT however get to play the >game as they please. For example, they are not >allowed to play on bnetd.
Since when do you need any priviledge or permision to use anything you buy? When you buy a burger, are you claiming you can't put extra ketchup on it unless you were specifically allowed so through a contract recieved when buying the burger? Of course not. You can do anything as long as it is not against the law. There is no special law saying they can't play the games of Blizzard on bnetd.
> While I've never used bnet.d server, I *think* >you must alter the client in order to use them >(retarget the server address).
At least in earlier Blizzard games, the list of IP numbers for the servers to connect to resided in the windows registry. So no need to alter any client at all.
>"Access" was a poor choice of words, but you are >missing something quite fundamental here. Were >are not talking about a book, we are talking >about a network based game
You were talking about the GPL and told an erronous thing about it.
We can talk about Blizzard's games though, not sure what we should talk about though.
>that as part of it's normal execution >*transfers* code and data that is copyrighted >between computers.
Nom their games do nothing of that. There is no copyrighted material transmitted. Besides, you don't get copyright on codes and data such as that.
>In other words to "access" the game's >functionality copyrighted material must >be "distributed".
Again, I fail to see the connection with the GPL I was answering to, but no, having your game you bought transfer, even copyrighted material, between itself and some game server, or even someone else with the game would be perfectly valid since it was designed by the game creators to do that, hence it can be assumed to be allowed or you could never play the game to start with.
In other words to "access" the game's functionality copyrighted material must be "distributed".
>Those are two different things. In the case of >you agreeing to Blizzard's EULA as written, they >have a team of lawyers that crafts the EULA.
So? What does that have to do with anything? A contract does not require a lawyer for it to be written or valid.
>When they include the EULA with their product >and have their software ask you whether or not >to accept it, that constitutes Blizzard >accepting the terms of the EULA.
They make an offer for an agreement, and yes, that means they are bound by it if the other part accept it.
>Then when you install the software and >click "accept", or in the case of TOS >agreements, click "accept" when running the >game, you're indicating your acceptance of the >agreement. Boom, a contract is formed
Not sure about the contract laws in your country, but were I live, the acceptance of the agreement has to actually reach the one making the offer for the contract to be done. That is, it is not enough for you to just think that you agree, it is not enough fo you to write down or sign a paper that you agree, you can still tear it apart or otherwise destroy and no contract is formed. Actually, you can even send it away to the one offering, and as long as you intercept if before they get it, there is no agreement. So no, just "clicking" is not enough to form a contract, perhaps it works in some other country though.
The only possible way I can see a contract formed would be if the program was somehow allowed to act on behalf of them (disregard situations were the click is actually transmitted back and so on). But then, here, again, only legal enteties can enter contracts, and a computer program is not a legal entity and hence can't work on their behalf. So no contract is really formed. Perhaps were you live, it is acceptable for the computer program to conclude the agreement. If so, it also follows that I can change the contract which would then constitue a denial of the original offer and a new offer made, if the program continues despite this. The result is either that there IS a contract formed with the new terms, or that there is no contract at all!!! There is really no other possibility.
>they agree to supply you with entertainment, and >you agree to abide by the rules they set out >when consuming that entertainment.
They really oallready supplied it to me as they sold it to me before, why would I need them to supply it again?
>If you try to be clever and get >someone/something else to agree to the EULA for >you, and then you use the software, you're using >it unlicensed (without permission).
So what? You don'ty need a license or permission to run it, so what is the problem? Just now I am actually doing it in fact, I am using my girslfriends computer and her programs.
>Two, the act of trying to circumvent the EULA is >proof of knowledge of its existence, and your >circumvention also indicates an unwillingness to >read the terms.
So? If someone present me with a contract, I don't have to read it, not agreeing it is hardly a "circumvention" it is called, simply not agreeing or disagreeing, what is the problem with that?
>One could argue that by actively bypassing the >EULA, you demonstrate your acceptance of the >terms without bothering to read the EULA.
Just out of curiosity, how do you work that out following normal contract law? If someone doesn't bother reading a contract and disregard it, how can they be claimned to actually have agreed to it any way? Sheesh.
To the same one that you "reply" your acceptance otherwsie, I am not saying this worls or is how contracts are entered, but appearantly the program can act on behalf of the sotware company since they think it can accept your acceptance. My personally opinion is that it is not ok in any case though.
>The average game does not include a mention of >the EULA on the box (Blizzard games do so it >might be a bad defense in this case but not when >dealing with e.g. Half-Life 2).
And even if they had, what happens if you order the game over the net and can't see the box? And what law requires you to read and be bound by any text written on the product you own? If I buy a car, do I need to check it all for any text somewere that I would be bound by? I don't think the approach of putting it on the box really acomplish anything.
>The EULA also states that if you disagree, you >can return the software for a full refund. The >sales contract usually states that you cannot >get a refund on opened software. I'd like to see >a court resolve that conflict.
I would say that the store is at least safe, they can't be bound by a contract between others. In addition, in case you disagree to the EULA, what is written in it is not enforcable or valid. To actually benefit from that part, you need to agree to the EULA, in which case it is a moot point really.
On the other hand, they are preventing you from using something you own, the copy of the game. Imagine if people can present you with contracts that turns valid when you use something you own, for example, I put a conteract on your car telling that if you use your car, you agree to my contract. Obviously that won't work.
So if I buy the game now as a gift to give away at Christmas, what then? Besides, if you do NOT agree to the EULA, it is quite irellevant what it states since it is not binding anyway. So they can actually decline it too.
So, how do you explain the recipie I have from the store that specifies that I have bought and own a copy of the game? Are you saying the store is lying and dealing with fraud?
You do realise that the very court case this is about, just ruled that indeed, the eula is a valid and enforcable contract! We may disagree, but that was the ruling in this case.
>You do have to have a key to use the game, but >it is on the server side and means not much >afterwards on the client after account creation.
Were is the difference? They use a key to check if you can play, be it directly or indirectly checking the account which has the key tied to it. The check is there and thus the same argument as in the Blizzard case exists.
>As for their licensing, they use the banhammer >to enforce it- as characters gain a good deal of >value over time spent. If you try to login 2 >chars, both get denied and logged out.
So do Blizzard, they ban to, that was not what I asked for, I asked for the specific things that the court decided bnetd had done wrong, all due to Blizzard having them in the EULA/ToS or due to having a server side CD-key check. You acknowledge that they have the CD check (plus the tie to an account), but have not told if they have the same conditions as Blizzard. The fact that they ban accounts as well is quite irellevant from this discussion. If they have the provisions in the EULA, they are not at all better than Blizzard since they forbid the exact same things and you can end up in the exact same position as the people with the bnetd did in case you do the same with Guildwars (which I think is NCsofts game).
>All right, how many times do we have to go >over "ownership" versus license to use. No >matter how much you want the former, the latter >is what actually exists and will continue to >exist. If you don't agree to the EULA, you take >back the software.
Sorry, in the shop, through a purchase, you gain ownership of the copy. The concept of buying and ownership transfer is quite old and supported by law. If you don't agree to any EULA that might be presented to you, fine, cotinue to do what the law allows and disregard what the EULA says since you did not agree to it. NO need to return anything.
>You are not "otherwise entitled" to anything >unless you consent to the EULA.
Yes, you can do anything that laws specifcally don't forbid. There is no law allowing you to sleep, yet you can sleep. There is no law forbiding you to use a program without a licens, hence you can use it without agreeing to any.
>There is no way to use the software without >consenting to the EULA, so I don't see how it is >possible to get around this restriction on >reverse engineering.
There are plenty of ways to not only use but also install software without having to agree to any EULA. YOu can make a manual installation, without using the install program (how DO you run that install program prior to agreeing to the EULA, if what you said was true, that would be illegal). You can use an allready installed copy, for example, I play games my girlfriend have bought and installed. and so on, just two examples.
Besdies, since ytou got ownership AT THE STORE when you bought the program, the attempt to use it through offering of a contract would in many countries not be a valid way to enter a contract.
>But you do not establish anywhere that these >restrictions are enough even to forbid EULAs of >the type currently under discussion. Are they >invalid in the EU? It certainly doesn't seem so.
They are not made at time of purchase or in connection with the purchase, they might have a whole bunch of terms in them that is completely in violence with even the examples in the directive. Looking at cases that has been ruled upon in other cases gives even more hints to what is acceptable and not. An interesting point is that often, they are not even presented in the language of the country they are sold in.
>You pay us for the service, and we will deliver >it.
Little off topic, but actually, the EULA in question and most other actually specifically mention that they offer NOTHING, no guarantee at all of you geting anything or that the program can be used for anything or fit any of the desired uses. So no, they don't really even offer that. In addition, there is actually nothing in the typical of what happens if they don't live up to their offer, there is usually a whole bunch of text regarding what happens if YOU don't fullfill your part. As an example of a term that would most certainly not be acceptable in most EU countries is the term that they could terminate the contract at will at any time for no reason. Another is the "we can change it at will without telling, instead you should come every time to read on a webpage to spot differences". I can list a ton more. However, since the way the agreement is entered into to start with is dubious, this can even be all irellevant, and if you do not agree to it (even if it would be valid), you can still use the program anyway, so I don't see the point.
>You do need a EULA to forbid reverse engineering >for compatibility, which is the issue at hand.
No, you don't NEED to forbid that any more than a car maker needs to forbid you from opening the hood to look at the engin. They WANT to do that, to forbid reverse engineering, but that does not mean thy are allowed to do so.
>Copyright doesn't grant users anything. It >protect the owner of the copyright from >infringing use.
Exactly, and only those activities listed in copyright law as exclusive to the copyright holder can be infringed on. Infringing use is not "against the will of the copyright holder". Hence any use that does not involve any of the listed rights of the copyright holder is OK and legal and does not need permission. Such use includes the way most people normally use software, and hence they don't infringe at all.
There is also a special specifically telling about the difference in owning the copyright to a work and owning copies of a work. Typically in a shop you buy a COPY of the work and owns it just like any other material thing and can do anything you can do with other material things you own, except those few forbidden by copyright law, nothing else!
So no, there is no "licensing" needed for anything else than to do the exlusive things (like copying), there is no need to agree to any such provided terms of use since not agreeing to them still allows you all noprmal uses.
>If you do not agree to their terms you have no >legal right to their copyrighted material.
WHy do people like to toss out statements like this? Perhaps you would like to provide some support for this? Perhaps you could quote some relevant copyright law. Here, I will give you a start:
I can tell you allready now that there is NOTHING in that law though that prevent someone to use a work withough a license so stop telling people such lies.
>Please understand, if draconian EULA's aren't >enforceable, then the ability for a company to >capture a profit is thrown into uncertainty.
No, they are not. Every other bussiness in the world manage to make profit without EULAs for example, software would as well. Besides, even if that was NOT the case, are you saying that we should have a law to specifically protect a bussines that would otherwise not be viable? If so, I would like some laws that makes it possible to make profit from guiding people over streets, should we forbid people to cross streets without such guide? How else could I profit?
Do note that copyright allready give protection for software, just as it do to music, books and many other things.
>Consider: I bought a Linux CD but I want to use >it in a different way than the GPL wants me to. >What prevents this?
Nothing. Some uses would have copyright law forbid it, it is in those cases you would need the GPL only.
>The fact that the CD I purchased does not give >me ownership of the copyrighted material on that >disc,
Yes, purchase is the transfer of ownership, so indeed it game you ownership over that copy of the material on the disc. That ownership is distinct form the ownership of the copyright which does not follow the ownership of copies. Here is a link for you to read more about it:
>Since it is free to play on battle.net with a >LEGAL copy, it's highly skeptical that it had >another purpose, no matter the "disclaimer" that >may be attached.
So if anything is free, there is no need for alternatively. Or rather, there should not even BE an alternatives, since any such alternatively would probably encourage piracy instead. Is that what you say? Do you apply that to anything in society? As soon as someone provides for something free, no one else should be allowed to make a competing product?
Re: You mailbox example, you are missing an important step in most cases when it comes to EULA and software, the actual sale that has allready existed and given you wonership to a copy of the software. It would be more like if you order stuff and then when you recieve it, you have to sign.
Also note that the EULA would typically be a completely different entity than the one you bought from to start with.
>Once you've fulfilled that requirement - >clicking yes or opening it - you should incur >the benefits (using the software) and >responsibilities (the restrictions in the >contract).
Sorry, a benefit must be something that you would otherwise not be entiteled or allowed to do. "Using the software" is not something that is otherwise forbidden. It would be like sending someone a contract that if agreed to, allowed them to breeth as a "benefit" (and if they didn't agree, would it then be not allowed?). One can decline the offer and still use the software since nothing forbids it.
>Most contracts are signed without any >negotiation other than the 2nd party consenting >to a prepared contract from the 1st party.
Sure, no problem, HOWEVER, most countries do have laws regulating contracts in consumer related situations (I really can't tell about US specific though since I am not familiar with those specific laws). Typically they dissallow all sort of terms in such a contract. In EU for example, the EU directive on unfair terms for example sets a minimum standard. Here is a link:
Many countries have gone much forther. Note that the restrictions typically get much more sever if a contract is of the non negotiating, mass contract type.
>You people who are so against Blizzard here need >to ask yourselves what the situation would be if >users were free to disregard the EULA.
Don't know, but about any other bussniess seems to get along just fine.
>It would mean that either (a) the software >content producers would have to accept anything >you did with it or (b) there would have to be >LEGISLATIVE limitations on your use that applied >to all software content.
And we have a winner, (b) is what applies, and it is called copyright. It forbids certain uses, one of which is copying for example. No need to have any EULA to forbid such things.
Note that a typical EULA will actually try to forbid things that have nothing at all to do with copyright.
So? Just because it is not needed does not mean it is not good, usefullr or even legal. There are tons of things in the world that are not needed, yet they exist and are used. Many times people feel it is a good thing, it is called alternatives, competition and such. Suddenly it is all bad though, at least when it comes to, wonder why.
>You bought a *license* to the software, not a >copy of the software.
No, you bought *a copy", the CD is THE copy (see definitions in copyright law of copy) you bought. You own that copy (see cales laws).
>Especially the first few lines that state the >software is licensed, not sold.
How come I then have a binding sales contract with the shop? Do note that the EULA only apply if you agree to it (and if it is not against any law otherwise). So indeed, when I walk out of the shop, I am an owner of a copy of the software.
>I don't understand why people are so braindead >when it comes to software licenses
Because they have no clue about the law, just like you?
>If software companies sold you the software, >like a 2x4, then you could do anything you want >with it including making a private copy and >selling the original.
Ehh, nope, they would noty because of something called copyright, ever heared of it? Here, a link to the US version of it:
You might be interested in learning the different in owning the copyright to a work and owning copies of a work, they are distinct and one does not inply the other. Similary, transfer of ownership to a copy does not transfer any ownership or rights to the copyright (see in particular 202). So no, by buying a copy of the software and owning it, you do not have any copyrights at all, so you can't make new copies (others than those allowed by other parts of the copyright law). Please, at least read the law before you start babbling about it.
>You don't own anything, but a license that the >copyright holder can revoke at any time.
No they can't, check 203 in the law I linked above. First, the right to use is not a copyright issue or forbidden to start with, henca can't be revoked. Any ACTUAL copyright license that is not time limited can't be revoked "at any time", actually it is quite hard ot revoke it, check that 203!!
>The legal foundation of the GPL is that it is >copyrighted material and only it's license give >you access to that material.
Sorry, you don't need a license to "access" copyright work. There is no such thing. You need a license to do things that only the copyright holder is allowed to do. Access is not one of those, making new copies are, distribution are. To do them, you might need for example the GPL, to just access and use, you really don't need to agree to the GPL, or any other liecense for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
>If I rememeber correctly they don't assume any
>at all. All 'AT YOUR OWN RISK', "NO WARRANTIES,
>EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED"
That is why it is so good that many countries have consumer related laws that won't allow such a thing. So, yes, they can still be liable in many ways.
>In the United States, clicking is sufficient,
>barring certain exceptions.
So what IS acceptable? Can the condition be that you walk out of your house? That you brush your teeth? Is there no requirement of for your acceptance to reach the one making the offer? That would mean you thinking of agreeing actually constitute a contract and so on. SO what exactly IS the criteria?
>If, in your country, clicking is not sufficient
>to form a legal agreement, then the whole
>argument is moot, because if you can't agree to
>the EULA, then you are legally not permitted to
>use the software at all.
Ehh, what law would forbid that? What law makes it not legally permitted? None! So you CAN use it even without the agreement.
>1. A game is not "property". It's just not that
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
>simple anymore.
A copy of a game is normal property though. It is a material object according to the copyright law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>So the individual may buy the game and get some
>privelidges, they do NOT however get to play the
>game as they please. For example, they are not
>allowed to play on bnetd.
Since when do you need any priviledge or permision to use anything you buy? When you buy a burger, are you claiming you can't put extra ketchup on it unless you were specifically allowed so through a contract recieved when buying the burger? Of course not. You can do anything as long as it is not against the law. There is no special law saying they can't play the games of Blizzard on bnetd.
> While I've never used bnet.d server, I *think*
>you must alter the client in order to use them
>(retarget the server address).
At least in earlier Blizzard games, the list of IP numbers for the servers to connect to resided in the windows registry. So no need to alter any client at all.
>"Access" was a poor choice of words, but you are
>missing something quite fundamental here. Were
>are not talking about a book, we are talking
>about a network based game
You were talking about the GPL and told an erronous thing about it.
We can talk about Blizzard's games though, not sure what we should talk about though.
>that as part of it's normal execution
>*transfers* code and data that is copyrighted
>between computers.
Nom their games do nothing of that. There is no copyrighted material transmitted. Besides, you don't get copyright on codes and data such as that.
>In other words to "access" the game's
>functionality copyrighted material must
>be "distributed".
Again, I fail to see the connection with the GPL I was answering to, but no, having your game you bought transfer, even copyrighted material, between itself and some game server, or even someone else with the game would be perfectly valid since it was designed by the game creators to do that, hence it can be assumed to be allowed or you could never play the game to start with.
In other words to "access" the game's functionality copyrighted material must be "distributed".
>Those are two different things. In the case of
>you agreeing to Blizzard's EULA as written, they
>have a team of lawyers that crafts the EULA.
So? What does that have to do with anything? A contract does not require a lawyer for it to be written or valid.
>When they include the EULA with their product
>and have their software ask you whether or not
>to accept it, that constitutes Blizzard
>accepting the terms of the EULA.
They make an offer for an agreement, and yes, that means they are bound by it if the other part accept it.
>Then when you install the software and
>click "accept", or in the case of TOS
>agreements, click "accept" when running the
>game, you're indicating your acceptance of the
>agreement. Boom, a contract is formed
Not sure about the contract laws in your country, but were I live, the acceptance of the agreement has to actually reach the one making the offer for the contract to be done. That is, it is not enough for you to just think that you agree, it is not enough fo you to write down or sign a paper that you agree, you can still tear it apart or otherwise destroy and no contract is formed. Actually, you can even send it away to the one offering, and as long as you intercept if before they get it, there is no agreement. So no, just "clicking" is not enough to form a contract, perhaps it works in some other country though.
The only possible way I can see a contract formed would be if the program was somehow allowed to act on behalf of them (disregard situations were the click is actually transmitted back and so on). But then, here, again, only legal enteties can enter contracts, and a computer program is not a legal entity and hence can't work on their behalf. So no contract is really formed. Perhaps were you live, it is acceptable for the computer program to conclude the agreement. If so, it also follows that I can change the contract which would then constitue a denial of the original offer and a new offer made, if the program continues despite this. The result is either that there IS a contract formed with the new terms, or that there is no contract at all!!! There is really no other possibility.
>they agree to supply you with entertainment, and
>you agree to abide by the rules they set out
>when consuming that entertainment.
They really oallready supplied it to me as they sold it to me before, why would I need them to supply it again?
>If you try to be clever and get
>someone/something else to agree to the EULA for
>you, and then you use the software, you're using
>it unlicensed (without permission).
So what? You don'ty need a license or permission to run it, so what is the problem? Just now I am actually doing it in fact, I am using my girslfriends computer and her programs.
>Two, the act of trying to circumvent the EULA is
>proof of knowledge of its existence, and your
>circumvention also indicates an unwillingness to
>read the terms.
So? If someone present me with a contract, I don't have to read it, not agreeing it is hardly a "circumvention" it is called, simply not agreeing or disagreeing, what is the problem with that?
>One could argue that by actively bypassing the
>EULA, you demonstrate your acceptance of the
>terms without bothering to read the EULA.
Just out of curiosity, how do you work that out following normal contract law? If someone doesn't bother reading a contract and disregard it, how can they be claimned to actually have agreed to it any way? Sheesh.
To the same one that you "reply" your acceptance otherwsie, I am not saying this worls or is how contracts are entered, but appearantly the program can act on behalf of the sotware company since they think it can accept your acceptance. My personally opinion is that it is not ok in any case though.
No, you presented a new offer for a contract, that appearantly was accepted and thus valid.
>The average game does not include a mention of
>the EULA on the box (Blizzard games do so it
>might be a bad defense in this case but not when
>dealing with e.g. Half-Life 2).
And even if they had, what happens if you order the game over the net and can't see the box? And what law requires you to read and be bound by any text written on the product you own? If I buy a car, do I need to check it all for any text somewere that I would be bound by? I don't think the approach of putting it on the box really acomplish anything.
>The EULA also states that if you disagree, you
>can return the software for a full refund. The
>sales contract usually states that you cannot
>get a refund on opened software. I'd like to see
>a court resolve that conflict.
I would say that the store is at least safe, they can't be bound by a contract between others. In addition, in case you disagree to the EULA, what is written in it is not enforcable or valid. To actually benefit from that part, you need to agree to the EULA, in which case it is a moot point really.
On the other hand, they are preventing you from using something you own, the copy of the game. Imagine if people can present you with contracts that turns valid when you use something you own, for example, I put a conteract on your car telling that if you use your car, you agree to my contract. Obviously that won't work.
So if I buy the game now as a gift to give away at Christmas, what then? Besides, if you do NOT agree to the EULA, it is quite irellevant what it states since it is not binding anyway. So they can actually decline it too.
>You should know better than that. You did not
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
>buy anything but a box with shiny discs in them.
You do realise that the dics ARE a copy of the software, right?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
(check under "copy")
>The software is 0wned by Blizzard and not you.
So, how do you explain the recipie I have from the store that specifies that I have bought and own a copy of the game? Are you saying the store is lying and dealing with fraud?
>(nope, eula is not a contract and never will be)
You do realise that the very court case this is about, just ruled that indeed, the eula is a valid and enforcable contract! We may disagree, but that was the ruling in this case.
>You do have to have a key to use the game, but
>it is on the server side and means not much
>afterwards on the client after account creation.
Were is the difference? They use a key to check if you can play, be it directly or indirectly checking the account which has the key tied to it. The check is there and thus the same argument as in the Blizzard case exists.
>As for their licensing, they use the banhammer
>to enforce it- as characters gain a good deal of
>value over time spent. If you try to login 2
>chars, both get denied and logged out.
So do Blizzard, they ban to, that was not what I asked for, I asked for the specific things that the court decided bnetd had done wrong, all due to Blizzard having them in the EULA/ToS or due to having a server side CD-key check. You acknowledge that they have the CD check (plus the tie to an account), but have not told if they have the same conditions as Blizzard. The fact that they ban accounts as well is quite irellevant from this discussion. If they have the provisions in the EULA, they are not at all better than Blizzard since they forbid the exact same things and you can end up in the exact same position as the people with the bnetd did in case you do the same with Guildwars (which I think is NCsofts game).
>All right, how many times do we have to go
>over "ownership" versus license to use. No
>matter how much you want the former, the latter
>is what actually exists and will continue to
>exist. If you don't agree to the EULA, you take
>back the software.
Sorry, in the shop, through a purchase, you gain ownership of the copy. The concept of buying and ownership transfer is quite old and supported by law. If you don't agree to any EULA that might be presented to you, fine, cotinue to do what the law allows and disregard what the EULA says since you did not agree to it. NO need to return anything.
>You are not "otherwise entitled" to anything
>unless you consent to the EULA.
Yes, you can do anything that laws specifcally don't forbid. There is no law allowing you to sleep, yet you can sleep. There is no law forbiding you to use a program without a licens, hence you can use it without agreeing to any.
>There is no way to use the software without
>consenting to the EULA, so I don't see how it is
>possible to get around this restriction on
>reverse engineering.
There are plenty of ways to not only use but also install software without having to agree to any EULA. YOu can make a manual installation, without using the install program (how DO you run that install program prior to agreeing to the EULA, if what you said was true, that would be illegal). You can use an allready installed copy, for example, I play games my girlfriend have bought and installed. and so on, just two examples.
Besdies, since ytou got ownership AT THE STORE when you bought the program, the attempt to use it through offering of a contract would in many countries not be a valid way to enter a contract.
>But you do not establish anywhere that these
>restrictions are enough even to forbid EULAs of
>the type currently under discussion. Are they
>invalid in the EU? It certainly doesn't seem so.
They are not made at time of purchase or in connection with the purchase, they might have a whole bunch of terms in them that is completely in violence with even the examples in the directive. Looking at cases that has been ruled upon in other cases gives even more hints to what is acceptable and not. An interesting point is that often, they are not even presented in the language of the country they are sold in.
>You pay us for the service, and we will deliver
>it.
Little off topic, but actually, the EULA in question and most other actually specifically mention that they offer NOTHING, no guarantee at all of you geting anything or that the program can be used for anything or fit any of the desired uses. So no, they don't really even offer that. In addition, there is actually nothing in the typical of what happens if they don't live up to their offer, there is usually a whole bunch of text regarding what happens if YOU don't fullfill your part. As an example of a term that would most certainly not be acceptable in most EU countries is the term that they could terminate the contract at will at any time for no reason. Another is the "we can change it at will without telling, instead you should come every time to read on a webpage to spot differences". I can list a ton more. However, since the way the agreement is entered into to start with is dubious, this can even be all irellevant, and if you do not agree to it (even if it would be valid), you can still use the program anyway, so I don't see the point.
>You do need a EULA to forbid reverse engineering
>for compatibility, which is the issue at hand.
No, you don't NEED to forbid that any more than a car maker needs to forbid you from opening the hood to look at the engin. They WANT to do that, to forbid reverse engineering, but that does not mean thy are allowed to do so.
>Copyright doesn't grant users anything. It
>protect the owner of the copyright from
>infringing use.
Exactly, and only those activities listed in copyright law as exclusive to the copyright holder can be infringed on. Infringing use is not "against the will of the copyright holder". Hence any use that does not involve any of the listed rights of the copyright holder is OK and legal and does not need permission. Such use includes the way most people normally use software, and hence they don't infringe at all.
There is also a special specifically telling about the difference in owning the copyright to a work and owning copies of a work. Typically in a shop you buy a COPY of the work and owns it just like any other material thing and can do anything you can do with other material things you own, except those few forbidden by copyright law, nothing else!
So no, there is no "licensing" needed for anything else than to do the exlusive things (like copying), there is no need to agree to any such provided terms of use since not agreeing to them still allows you all noprmal uses.
>If you do not agree to their terms you have no
s c_sup_01_17.html
>legal right to their copyrighted material.
WHy do people like to toss out statements like this? Perhaps you would like to provide some support for this? Perhaps you could quote some relevant copyright law. Here, I will give you a start:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
I can tell you allready now that there is NOTHING in that law though that prevent someone to use a work withough a license so stop telling people such lies.
>Please understand, if draconian EULA's aren't
>enforceable, then the ability for a company to
>capture a profit is thrown into uncertainty.
No, they are not. Every other bussiness in the world manage to make profit without EULAs for example, software would as well. Besides, even if that was NOT the case, are you saying that we should have a law to specifically protect a bussines that would otherwise not be viable? If so, I would like some laws that makes it possible to make profit from guiding people over streets, should we forbid people to cross streets without such guide? How else could I profit?
Do note that copyright allready give protection for software, just as it do to music, books and many other things.
>Consider: I bought a Linux CD but I want to use
s c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html
>it in a different way than the GPL wants me to.
>What prevents this?
Nothing. Some uses would have copyright law forbid it, it is in those cases you would need the GPL only.
>The fact that the CD I purchased does not give
>me ownership of the copyrighted material on that
>disc,
Yes, purchase is the transfer of ownership, so indeed it game you ownership over that copy of the material on the disc. That ownership is distinct form the ownership of the copyright which does not follow the ownership of copies. Here is a link for you to read more about it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
>Since it is free to play on battle.net with a
>LEGAL copy, it's highly skeptical that it had
>another purpose, no matter the "disclaimer" that
>may be attached.
So if anything is free, there is no need for alternatively. Or rather, there should not even BE an alternatives, since any such alternatively would probably encourage piracy instead. Is that what you say? Do you apply that to anything in society? As soon as someone provides for something free, no one else should be allowed to make a competing product?
Re: You mailbox example, you are missing an important step in most cases when it comes to EULA and software, the actual sale that has allready existed and given you wonership to a copy of the software. It would be more like if you order stuff and then when you recieve it, you have to sign.
_ shop/unf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
Also note that the EULA would typically be a completely different entity than the one you bought from to start with.
>Once you've fulfilled that requirement -
>clicking yes or opening it - you should incur
>the benefits (using the software) and
>responsibilities (the restrictions in the
>contract).
Sorry, a benefit must be something that you would otherwise not be entiteled or allowed to do. "Using the software" is not something that is otherwise forbidden. It would be like sending someone a contract that if agreed to, allowed them to breeth as a "benefit" (and if they didn't agree, would it then be not allowed?). One can decline the offer and still use the software since nothing forbids it.
>Most contracts are signed without any
>negotiation other than the 2nd party consenting
>to a prepared contract from the 1st party.
Sure, no problem, HOWEVER, most countries do have laws regulating contracts in consumer related situations (I really can't tell about US specific though since I am not familiar with those specific laws). Typically they dissallow all sort of terms in such a contract. In EU for example, the EU directive on unfair terms for example sets a minimum standard. Here is a link:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe
(for actual text, click link in second paragraph)
Many countries have gone much forther. Note that the restrictions typically get much more sever if a contract is of the non negotiating, mass contract type.
>You people who are so against Blizzard here need
>to ask yourselves what the situation would be if
>users were free to disregard the EULA.
Don't know, but about any other bussniess seems to get along just fine.
>It would mean that either (a) the software
>content producers would have to accept anything
>you did with it or (b) there would have to be
>LEGISLATIVE limitations on your use that applied
>to all software content.
And we have a winner, (b) is what applies, and it is called copyright. It forbids certain uses, one of which is copying for example. No need to have any EULA to forbid such things.
Note that a typical EULA will actually try to forbid things that have nothing at all to do with copyright.
>In this case BNETD isnt' needed.
So? Just because it is not needed does not mean it is not good, usefullr or even legal. There are tons of things in the world that are not needed, yet they exist and are used. Many times people feel it is a good thing, it is called alternatives, competition and such. Suddenly it is all bad though, at least when it comes to, wonder why.
>You bought a *license* to the software, not a
s c_sup_01_17.html
>copy of the software.
No, you bought *a copy", the CD is THE copy (see definitions in copyright law of copy) you bought. You own that copy (see cales laws).
>Especially the first few lines that state the
>software is licensed, not sold.
How come I then have a binding sales contract with the shop? Do note that the EULA only apply if you agree to it (and if it is not against any law otherwise). So indeed, when I walk out of the shop, I am an owner of a copy of the software.
>I don't understand why people are so braindead
>when it comes to software licenses
Because they have no clue about the law, just like you?
>If software companies sold you the software,
>like a 2x4, then you could do anything you want
>with it including making a private copy and
>selling the original.
Ehh, nope, they would noty because of something called copyright, ever heared of it? Here, a link to the US version of it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
You might be interested in learning the different in owning the copyright to a work and owning copies of a work, they are distinct and one does not inply the other. Similary, transfer of ownership to a copy does not transfer any ownership or rights to the copyright (see in particular 202). So no, by buying a copy of the software and owning it, you do not have any copyrights at all, so you can't make new copies (others than those allowed by other parts of the copyright law). Please, at least read the law before you start babbling about it.
>You don't own anything, but a license that the
>copyright holder can revoke at any time.
No they can't, check 203 in the law I linked above. First, the right to use is not a copyright issue or forbidden to start with, henca can't be revoked. Any ACTUAL copyright license that is not time limited can't be revoked "at any time", actually it is quite hard ot revoke it, check that 203!!
>The legal foundation of the GPL is that it is
>copyrighted material and only it's license give
>you access to that material.
Sorry, you don't need a license to "access" copyright work. There is no such thing. You need a license to do things that only the copyright holder is allowed to do. Access is not one of those, making new copies are, distribution are. To do them, you might need for example the GPL, to just access and use, you really don't need to agree to the GPL, or any other liecense for that matter.
>There are few things bnetd actually is good for
>except to circumvent blizzards copy protection.
Ehh, it is good for actually PLAYING the game as well.