>in addition, from a legal standpoint, the >ebayers are selling something that technically >doesn't belong to them. the game data and code >on the servers belongs to blizzard.
Claiming data to be property is in my opinion going a bit to far. Claiming that the reason you can't sell stuff in the game because you don't "own" it thus makes little sense. This trying to make data or whatever you want to call it in an imaginary world the same as real physical property is just plain sily.
In addition, by that reasoning, you can't simply give away an item in game either. How could you give something away that is not yours? Can you even pick up something? It is not yours you know? Also note that when you sell an item, or just give it away, it is not like you take it away from Blizzard, it is still there. You aren't affecting them in any way at all.
It all comes down to were it is sold I presume. The thing is, you can't decide if someone can buy based on were they LIVE. This is what they are doing. If you go to the french site and they notice you seem to live in England, you would not be allowed to buy, THAT is what they are not allowed to do. The fact that one can buy directly in one country while never going there over then net is possibly complicating it but not really a problem. One have been able to do it before the internet by sending a normal mail for exapmle, internet just makes it more convenient and easy.
You miss the point, it doesn't matter were you live in Europe, you are allowed to buy from anywere. The fact that someone wants to not allow it is the problem. You are not allowed to dissalow people from anpother EU country to buy it. IN what way you sell it is irrelevant.
The thing is not that they charge different prices really, but that they won't allow someone from the UK to shop from France. Hence, the result is that they end up having to pay more. That in itself is not the problem, is it a result of it. If the ones supplying Apple won't allow it, then Apple simply can't make a deal with them.
I can go and order a book from a French bookshop over the net, I then pay what someone in France would (possibly higher postage). The French shop can't say I must go to their Swedish shop (regardless of if it costs more or less). Nothing actually prevent them from having a shop in Sweden charging more of course, it is another issue.
>This is further complicated by the fact that >although their end user license says you can >only buy from the country in which you reside,
And this is the problem, not really that one charge different prices in different countries (or even within a country, happens for almost anything). Someone in UK is allowed to buy from France without there being allowed to be any restrictions or problems that does not exist also from someone in France. This is clearly not the case here.
Sp you mean the law actually says you can't buy music, and if you enter a shop to buy aCD, you end up with a license to listen to it instead and doesn't own is as with every thing else you buy?? Is that part of purchase laws or somewere else?
>The creators of Kazaa are not Sharman Networks >in Australia. Kazaa was created by a team of >programmers from The Netherlands(Europe).
If I am not mistaken, Kazaa was founded by Niklas Zennström, who is Swedish, and Janus Friis, who is Danish. There might have been dutch programmers involved and perhaps the company was set up in The Netherlands, that I really don't know.
>Here in the UK (and other countries) when you >purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen >to the music on that medium only.
Hmm, is that actually the law? If not, what makes you believe it is so? If it is, do you happens to know were to find it? WHat other countries do you refer to by the way?
Why would you NOT own a copy of the software if you buy it? You own it just as much as you own the chair or dishwasher you buy. It is sold the exact same way.
If I walk into a store and pick up a toaster, a computer game and some apples, when I walk out of the store, why would I own some of those and not the others? And what do you base that "fact" on stating which you own or not? Certainly not any laws.
What does that have to do with anything? When I enter a shop and buy something, sale laws apply and I walk out of the store with a copy of the software I own.
>Doesn't anything about being "told" terms and >conditions strike you as being a little one >sided? Real contracts allow the negotiation of >terms, and somehow I don't think Valve is going >to accept a modified EULA.
Not trying do defend EULAs, but contracts does not really have to be open for negotiation. Contracts work by having someone make an offer and someone else accepting that offer. Instead of accepting, one can always decline it or make a counter offer. A counter offer (that is changing something or "negotiating") is actually the same as declining the original offer and making a completely new offer that the other can accept or decline. No one is ever forced to accept anything. Actually, if someone is forced into a contract, I would say most countries' laws would say that such a contract is void.
>Without the EULA (or if it was invalid) you have >no right at all to use the software, the EULA >gives you your rights to use it
Why have you come to that strange conclusion? Do you base it on for example and laws stating so? Do note that use is NOT an exclusive right to the copyright holder. Just as I can use my chair with no EULA I can use my book or computer game with no EULA.
>Technically, you can never resell software, this >isn't new with Valve. > >Read the EULA on any Microsoft software.
If we assume EULAs actually ARE ok and valid, just don't agree with it and you can sell it all you want since if you don't agree to it, it can't possibly apply, now could it?
>No, you don't. Here it is again, as you seem to >have missed it: you are not buying the software - > you are buying the media it is delivered on and >a license to use it.
No idea were you get your software, but everywere in the world were I have been and seen, software has actually been sold, just like basically most everything else ranging from toasters, books and food to dishwashers, computers and furnitures. I actually have seen a shop in Sweden that rent you computer console games though long ago, no idea if it exists still. It worked the same way as those places were you rent movies. Other than that, I see software sold all over.
Of course they can want it for a veriety of reasons, I was just commenting on the specific case you mentioned, "pirating" the game. No need for it there.
Yes, I have happened to produce my own material that get copyright, both text in form of a highly used game guide and in the form of various tools usable together with that and other games. They were all free for people to use and those who wanted got the source code and so on (even posted it publicly many times). So no, no EULA in sight and I am happy with it. Didn't charge money of course, but really, even if I wanted, a typical EULA does not really prevent me from that anyway.
>According to the law, the software is not yours >and therefore you can not do as you wish with >it.
What laws? Copyright laws for certain does not say so. You are confusing owning the copyright to owning copies. Owning the copyright, gives you a few exclusive rights of which creating new copies, distributing them and making public performances are the main ones. For that you need to own the copyright. For everything else (including use, read, play, whatever), you do NOT need to own the copyright or even have the permision of the copyright owner, you just need to own an individual copy (or have access to one).
>If you brought software, then you would have the >rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.
You, as so many others, are confusing owning and buying the copyright to a work and owning and buying individula copies of the work. To be able to do the things you mentioned, you need to own the copyright. For everything else, you do not, you just have to own (or even have access) to an individual copy.
>No, the aparent problem is the availability of >the EULA. The software code isn't "yours" any >more than the code to MS Windows is "yours" when >you install XP or whatever.
You are confusing ownership of the copyright of thw work with ownership of individual copies of the work. One can own specific copies without owning the copyright. When you buy software, you buy a specific copy and of ocurse not the copyright, no one claims that. You can then do whatever you want with your copy, including using it, playing it, reading it or whatever it is you do with it. You can't do anything that copyright law forbids though, but that is making new copies, distributing them, making public performances and such. Use is NOT such a restricted act.
Why the obsession with what is printed on the box? Does text printed on something you buy automatically turns into a binding contract? Should I look under my car next time I buy one to see if there is some text there I agree to by buying thr car? What about me buying something over the net, or phoning or recieving it as a gift. Perhaps it differes by country but I have yet to see a law in a country that says any text printed onto something you buy is also automatically a contract you agree to.
There can be several different cases. Some countries have for example consumer sale laws that dictate certain minimum rights for the consumer or requirements of a sale and also says that those can NOT be taken away by additional contracts, hence such contracts might be invalid (or at least those parts of it). Same for backup and copyright, it is in some countries (not sure about all) a right to make backup that can NOT be taken away by additional contracts.
Apart from that we have contract laws that tells how a contract is made and what circumstances make a contract invalid. Typically for a contract to be formed there has to be an offer and then an acceptance. In addition the acceptance has to reach the one making the offer, that is, it is not enough for you to just think that you will accept. You can even sign a contract but instead of sending it back, you later destroy it instead. In no case have there been a contract.
For an example of a circumstance that invalidate a contract, imagine someone forcing (for example threatening you to do it) a contract to be signed. The it is not valid either. Usually a contract can also not be entered by someone NOT doing something. That is, I can't send you a suggestion for an offer stating that if you don't reply and decline it, I would assume you agree. Other cases in regard to sale and consumer sale cases (or indeed contracts in general) handle "unfair" conditions. Exactly what is and what is not unfair is of course open for question and is either covered by the law, or through court cases. Examples would be selling you something and making demands about totally irrelevant and unconnected things. For example a store only selling you food if you agree to pay the owner for any costs in regard to his health.
One typical argument against EULA are that it is not part of the sale of the software. It is an additional contract "forced" (since you can't use what you bought and presumably thus own without agreeing to it) on to you after the sale is concluded. In addition by someone else than whoever sold you to it to start with which is the store and usually, sale is a deal between you as a consumer and the store. There are many other objections and reasons to it and of course also similar ones to why it should be perfectly OK.
As always, it may vary quite a bit between countries, and what applies to some does not to others.
>Then perhapse "buy" isn't the term software >companies should use from now on, since you >don't own the item outright to do as you will >with it.
Buy is of course the correct word for as long as they actually DO sell their games. The day when they do in fact start make you rent games, just like you rent other stuff, including follow laws regulating it, that day they "buy" is of course the wrong word. BUt so far I see all games available for buying in shops all over.
>You can negotiate. You can agree or disagree with >the EULA.
Cool, since people claim it is the EULA that says you did not buy the software, only licenced it, does that mean that if I actually disagree to it, it turns out I actually DID buy the software to start with? Amazing, buying by disagreeing to something.
Slashdot Mirror
>in addition, from a legal standpoint, the
>ebayers are selling something that technically
>doesn't belong to them. the game data and code
>on the servers belongs to blizzard.
Claiming data to be property is in my opinion going a bit to far. Claiming that the reason you can't sell stuff in the game because you don't "own" it thus makes little sense. This trying to make data or whatever you want to call it in an imaginary world the same as real physical property is just plain sily.
In addition, by that reasoning, you can't simply give away an item in game either. How could you give something away that is not yours? Can you even pick up something? It is not yours you know? Also note that when you sell an item, or just give it away, it is not like you take it away from Blizzard, it is still there. You aren't affecting them in any way at all.
It all comes down to were it is sold I presume. The thing is, you can't decide if someone can buy based on were they LIVE. This is what they are doing. If you go to the french site and they notice you seem to live in England, you would not be allowed to buy, THAT is what they are not allowed to do. The fact that one can buy directly in one country while never going there over then net is possibly complicating it but not really a problem. One have been able to do it before the internet by sending a normal mail for exapmle, internet just makes it more convenient and easy.
You miss the point, it doesn't matter were you live in Europe, you are allowed to buy from anywere. The fact that someone wants to not allow it is the problem. You are not allowed to dissalow people from anpother EU country to buy it. IN what way you sell it is irrelevant.
The thing is not that they charge different prices really, but that they won't allow someone from the UK to shop from France. Hence, the result is that they end up having to pay more. That in itself is not the problem, is it a result of it. If the ones supplying Apple won't allow it, then Apple simply can't make a deal with them.
I can go and order a book from a French bookshop over the net, I then pay what someone in France would (possibly higher postage). The French shop can't say I must go to their Swedish shop (regardless of if it costs more or less). Nothing actually prevent them from having a shop in Sweden charging more of course, it is another issue.
>This is further complicated by the fact that
>although their end user license says you can
>only buy from the country in which you reside,
And this is the problem, not really that one charge different prices in different countries (or even within a country, happens for almost anything). Someone in UK is allowed to buy from France without there being allowed to be any restrictions or problems that does not exist also from someone in France. This is clearly not the case here.
Easy to work arround. Have someone else do the monitoring, someone that does not have the game or have agreed to the EULA.
>Indeed it is.
Sp you mean the law actually says you can't buy music, and if you enter a shop to buy aCD, you end up with a license to listen to it instead and doesn't own is as with every thing else you buy?? Is that part of purchase laws or somewere else?
>The creators of Kazaa are not Sharman Networks
>in Australia. Kazaa was created by a team of
>programmers from The Netherlands(Europe).
If I am not mistaken, Kazaa was founded by Niklas Zennström, who is Swedish, and Janus Friis, who is Danish. There might have been dutch programmers involved and perhaps the company was set up in The Netherlands, that I really don't know.
>Here in the UK (and other countries) when you
>purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen
>to the music on that medium only.
Hmm, is that actually the law? If not, what makes you believe it is so? If it is, do you happens to know were to find it? WHat other countries do you refer to by the way?
Why would you NOT own a copy of the software if you buy it? You own it just as much as you own the chair or dishwasher you buy. It is sold the exact same way.
If I walk into a store and pick up a toaster, a computer game and some apples, when I walk out of the store, why would I own some of those and not the others? And what do you base that "fact" on stating which you own or not? Certainly not any laws.
What does that have to do with anything? When I enter a shop and buy something, sale laws apply and I walk out of the store with a copy of the software I own.
>Doesn't anything about being "told" terms and
>conditions strike you as being a little one
>sided? Real contracts allow the negotiation of
>terms, and somehow I don't think Valve is going
>to accept a modified EULA.
Not trying do defend EULAs, but contracts does not really have to be open for negotiation. Contracts work by having someone make an offer and someone else accepting that offer. Instead of accepting, one can always decline it or make a counter offer. A counter offer (that is changing something or "negotiating") is actually the same as declining the original offer and making a completely new offer that the other can accept or decline. No one is ever forced to accept anything. Actually, if someone is forced into a contract, I would say most countries' laws would say that such a contract is void.
>Without the EULA (or if it was invalid) you have
>no right at all to use the software, the EULA
>gives you your rights to use it
Why have you come to that strange conclusion? Do you base it on for example and laws stating so? Do note that use is NOT an exclusive right to the copyright holder. Just as I can use my chair with no EULA I can use my book or computer game with no EULA.
>Technically, you can never resell software, this
>isn't new with Valve.
>
>Read the EULA on any Microsoft software.
If we assume EULAs actually ARE ok and valid, just don't agree with it and you can sell it all you want since if you don't agree to it, it can't possibly apply, now could it?
>No, you don't. Here it is again, as you seem to
>have missed it: you are not buying the software -
> you are buying the media it is delivered on and
>a license to use it.
No idea were you get your software, but everywere in the world were I have been and seen, software has actually been sold, just like basically most everything else ranging from toasters, books and food to dishwashers, computers and furnitures. I actually have seen a shop in Sweden that rent you computer console games though long ago, no idea if it exists still. It worked the same way as those places were you rent movies. Other than that, I see software sold all over.
Of course they can want it for a veriety of reasons, I was just commenting on the specific case you mentioned, "pirating" the game. No need for it there.
Yes, I have happened to produce my own material that get copyright, both text in form of a highly used game guide and in the form of various tools usable together with that and other games. They were all free for people to use and those who wanted got the source code and so on (even posted it publicly many times). So no, no EULA in sight and I am happy with it. Didn't charge money of course, but really, even if I wanted, a typical EULA does not really prevent me from that anyway.
But there is no need for an EULA to prevent pirating since the law allready makes it illegal.
>According to the law, the software is not yours
>and therefore you can not do as you wish with
>it.
What laws? Copyright laws for certain does not say so. You are confusing owning the copyright to owning copies. Owning the copyright, gives you a few exclusive rights of which creating new copies, distributing them and making public performances are the main ones. For that you need to own the copyright. For everything else (including use, read, play, whatever), you do NOT need to own the copyright or even have the permision of the copyright owner, you just need to own an individual copy (or have access to one).
>If you brought software, then you would have the
>rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.
You, as so many others, are confusing owning and buying the copyright to a work and owning and buying individula copies of the work. To be able to do the things you mentioned, you need to own the copyright. For everything else, you do not, you just have to own (or even have access) to an individual copy.
>No, the aparent problem is the availability of
>the EULA. The software code isn't "yours" any
>more than the code to MS Windows is "yours" when
>you install XP or whatever.
You are confusing ownership of the copyright of thw work with ownership of individual copies of the work. One can own specific copies without owning the copyright. When you buy software, you buy a specific copy and of ocurse not the copyright, no one claims that. You can then do whatever you want with your copy, including using it, playing it, reading it or whatever it is you do with it. You can't do anything that copyright law forbids though, but that is making new copies, distributing them, making public performances and such. Use is NOT such a restricted act.
Why the obsession with what is printed on the box? Does text printed on something you buy automatically turns into a binding contract? Should I look under my car next time I buy one to see if there is some text there I agree to by buying thr car? What about me buying something over the net, or phoning or recieving it as a gift. Perhaps it differes by country but I have yet to see a law in a country that says any text printed onto something you buy is also automatically a contract you agree to.
There can be several different cases. Some countries have for example consumer sale laws that dictate certain minimum rights for the consumer or requirements of a sale and also says that those can NOT be taken away by additional contracts, hence such contracts might be invalid (or at least those parts of it). Same for backup and copyright, it is in some countries (not sure about all) a right to make backup that can NOT be taken away by additional contracts.
Apart from that we have contract laws that tells how a contract is made and what circumstances make a contract invalid. Typically for a contract to be formed there has to be an offer and then an acceptance. In addition the acceptance has to reach the one making the offer, that is, it is not enough for you to just think that you will accept. You can even sign a contract but instead of sending it back, you later destroy it instead. In no case have there been a contract.
For an example of a circumstance that invalidate a contract, imagine someone forcing (for example threatening you to do it) a contract to be signed. The it is not valid either. Usually a contract can also not be entered by someone NOT doing something. That is, I can't send you a suggestion for an offer stating that if you don't reply and decline it, I would assume you agree. Other cases in regard to sale and consumer sale cases (or indeed contracts in general) handle "unfair" conditions. Exactly what is and what is not unfair is of course open for question and is either covered by the law, or through court cases. Examples would be selling you something and making demands about totally irrelevant and unconnected things. For example a store only selling you food if you agree to pay the owner for any costs in regard to his health.
One typical argument against EULA are that it is not part of the sale of the software. It is an additional contract "forced" (since you can't use what you bought and presumably thus own without agreeing to it) on to you after the sale is concluded. In addition by someone else than whoever sold you to it to start with which is the store and usually, sale is a deal between you as a consumer and the store. There are many other objections and reasons to it and of course also similar ones to why it should be perfectly OK.
As always, it may vary quite a bit between countries, and what applies to some does not to others.
> If you change the EULA of a game you have to
>get the companie to accept it before you play
>the game.
Why? There is no law that requires you to get permision before playing a computer game or use software in general.
>Then perhapse "buy" isn't the term software
>companies should use from now on, since you
>don't own the item outright to do as you will
>with it.
Buy is of course the correct word for as long as they actually DO sell their games. The day when they do in fact start make you rent games, just like you rent other stuff, including follow laws regulating it, that day they "buy" is of course the wrong word. BUt so far I see all games available for buying in shops all over.
>You can negotiate. You can agree or disagree with
>the EULA.
Cool, since people claim it is the EULA that says you did not buy the software, only licenced it, does that mean that if I actually disagree to it, it turns out I actually DID buy the software to start with? Amazing, buying by disagreeing to something.