Bethesda tires of spending money to support pirates

[pkt-zer0]

Not necessarily, he could rent it, he could play at a friends.

Which is still piracy, if you ask, say, the BSA.

 

[Pope Viper]

Then perhaps they need to pry their head out?

 

[Brother None]

Which is still piracy, if you ask, say, the BSA.

Not their call to make.

It's true UELAs do not allow you to borrow and lend games, but UELAs do not hold up in courts and I certainly don't feel bound to them. How companies chose to define piracy does not impact what it is, or how either I or the people whose opinion actually matters - the lawmakers - view it.

To be fair, sometimes you want to try out a game that you're on the edge about even after doing research and it doesn't offer a demo.

And that's too bad, but publishers aren't obliged to anything. It pisses me off too sometimes when there's no demo, or when there's DRM. What do I do? I just don't buy it. But because I didn't buy it, I also do not have the right to play it. Simple as that.

 

[pkt-zer0]

It's EULA, short for "End User License Agreement", by the way.

And that's too bad, but publishers aren't obliged to anything. It pisses me off too sometimes when there's no demo, or when there's DRM. What do I do? I just don't buy it. But because I didn't buy it, I also do not have the right to play it. Simple as that.

But borrowing it from a friend is somehow okay? You didn't pay for it, don't have the right to play it. Simple as that.
...or is it?

 

[taag]

It's true UELAs do not allow you to borrow and lend games, but UELAs do not hold up in courts and I certainly don't feel bound to them. How companies chose to define piracy does not impact what it is, or how either I or the people whose opinion actually matters - the lawmakers - view it.

If you clicked "I agree", EULA will probably hold up in court unless it's overruled (partially or in its entirety) by an existing law(s).

 

[Brother None]

It's EULA, short for "End User License Agreement", by the way.

Oh no

But borrowing it from a friend is somehow okay? You didn't pay for it, don't have the right to play it. Simple as that.

I'm playing it which means my friend can not. The consumption of this product is limited by a one-per-person usage base, the same as any consumer product. If I borrow a TV from my neighbour for a week, I'm watching TV without having paid for it (well, I'll pay for the cable, but still). Same thing. I'm not stealing unless we're both consuming an item that has only been paid for once.

Unless you want to argue that any borrowing is theft, this doesn't stick.

If you clicked "I agree", EULA will probably hold up in court unless it's overruled (partially or in its entirety) by an existing law(s).

Nope, EULAs aren't upheld by any courts in Europe or - indeed - anywhere. They are not valid contracts.

Note that most lawyers will tell you that theoretically EULAs should hold up if you click "I agree", but that's just theory: I have yet to see one case where an EULA is actually upheld.

Most important is this: the EULA tends to hold up as long as it follows actually prescribed rules that the law would apply even if the EULA did not exist. If the EULA tries to apply something - anything - that the law would not by itself (giving the company free license to use information gathered, withholding right to borrow the product) the law will not uphold it. If that's what you meant, then yes, you're right.

 

[Mutoes]

Well, i think it comes down to simply... no matter how crap the game is, its still someones work or investment. Piracy is just stealing, no matter how you put it. Even libraries pay (at least in here) for rights to keep particular book in their shelves, with our tax money.

I very much apreciate demos or ability to try a game out before buying it, and i tend to buy games that have offered me a chance to try it out beforehand. I like to think i can, so to speak, vote with my money, not just for a good game(Which is of course the most important part) but also for "fairness" towards me as a consumer.

 

[taag]

Nope, EULAs aren't upheld by any courts in Europe or - indeed - anywhere. They are not valid contracts.

The problem might be the absence of customer's signature. In the future, digital signatures might play a big role in this.

I have yet to see one case where an EULA is actually upheld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg

<snip> ...the law will not uphold it. If that's what you meant, then yes, you're right.

Yes, I was referring to this as well.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

No it isn't. If you truly hate crap, why are you stealing it? If it's that crappy, just turn away from it.

I agree, and it's not a money issue for me at all. I have a fulltime job, wife, kids, yardwork, bar time, etc.
I can only give so much time towards entertainment in a given day/week. That means I can't afford timewise to read shitty books, watch shitty movies or play shitty games. Regardless of cost - no interest in shitty RPGs.

Does this make me an elitist?
You're damn right.
In gaming, some concepts are better than others, some design more enduring, some thematic content more universal. Some developers, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of my finite attention.

Ask yourself why people still play a game with a solid, enduring RPG bedrock like Fallout, and who will be playing fluff-arpg like Oblivion after a decade.

Elitism is doing me just fine.

I'm not touching Fallout 3, I won't even piss on the box if I see it on fire. Just like with Oblivion. Didn't loose any sleep over never playing that one either. Doin' just fine Oblivion free actually.

 

[Brother None]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg

Now that's a while ago, first time I heard of it. However, the court explicitly state one requirement of the shrink-wrap agreement being upheld was the option for Zeidenberg to return the product if he did not agree with the license agreement. This is not the case for video games, so this case is not similar to EULA cases.

Yes, I was referring to this as well.

It's not the same thing, though. It's not just when EULAs break laws that they become invalid, it's when they try to do more than what consumer code allows them to that they invalidate themselves, even if said requirements would be legal in an individual contract.

If I buy a type-writer with a single-usage contract in which I agree that everything written on this type-writer will be copyright owned by the guy I bought the type-writer of, he will own everything I write on it, and the contract will be enforceable by law.

If Google had kept their controversial point in their Chrome EULA which claims copyright on everything produced on Chrome, do you think they would have had any success publishing any article produced on Chrome on their own site and then suing people who kept it up on their individual sites? No. Because the EULA wouldn't stick.

 

[pkt-zer0]

I'm playing it which means my friend can not. The consumption of this product is limited by a one-per-person usage base, the same as any consumer product.

Only if it's enforced by some sort of copy protection.

Unless you want to argue that any borrowing is theft, this doesn't stick.

No, I'm saying that the "you didn't pay for it, so you've no right to play it" works for borrowed games as well. Or buying stuff second-hand - developers aren't seeing a dime from that, for sure.
So there should be no harm in downloading games then, either, as long as you don't play it at the same time your friend next door owning an original copy is.

 

[Brother None]

Only if it's enforced by some sort of copy protection.

Or by my own moral code. It's no longer borrowing if we both have it, since we essentially multiple the product while only paying for it once, for whatever period of time.

No, I'm saying that the "you didn't pay for it, so you've no right to play it" works for borrowed games as well. Or buying stuff second-hand - developers aren't seeing a dime from that, for sure.

You're confusing the issue: in both cases, I'm consuming a product that has been paid for under legal circumstances. You're turning this into pointless semantics this way.

Publishers do not have the right to determine under what circumstances I do that, the law and moral codes do. I don't know of any law or set of morality that is against the concept of second hand purchase or borrowing games.

 

[Matt K]

Nope, EULAs aren't upheld by any courts in Europe or - indeed - anywhere. They are not valid contracts.

The problem might be the absence of customer's signature. In the future, digital signatures might play a big role in this.

I have yet to see one case where an EULA is actually upheld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg

<snip> ...the law will not uphold it. If that's what you meant, then yes, you're right.

Yes, I was referring to this as well.

Actually you are wrong on all accounts. The problem with EULA is not signature but that it goes into effect after purchase which you cannot do legally. Once the product is bought, that's the end of things, no contract can be negotiated after the fact (a EULA is a contract). Further the case you sited doesn't matter because first it is a commercial case (consumers have significantly higher protections) and second it's a minority opinion (i.e. it only applies int he 7th Circuit and maybe not even then).

 

[Oakraven]

SIGH!

ok lets start off with whats now considerd to be a "boilerplate" EULA clause.

BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE GAME (DEFINED BELOW), YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE GAME. IF YOU REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER PURCHASING THE GAME, YOU MAY CALL XXX-XXX-XXXX TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.

that EULA header is, verbatem, part of the header on no less than 8 games I have currently.

why?
because that EXACT EULA header was efectlivly declared valid and binding by

(US) US 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th, and 9th Circuit Courts,
(England) Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

you see WoW is almost constantly getting hit with lawsuits over "breach of contract" and other interesting clames whenever they patch the game, one of the side efects of haveing 10 million + subscribers is your eventualy going to piss some of the off enough to either call a lawer, or become one. Eventualy they got one that the courts would let them enforce.

the net effect of how enforcable a EULA is bascialy boils down to three questions

1) IS the EULA clear and unambiguous, especially with regard to the issues in a court case. If there is any indication that an attempt was made to obscure details of the EULA, or that the issue was not incorperated in the EULA the enforcability of the EULA suffers.

2) This one is a little more vague, but is it "reasonable and fair" for it to be enforceable under its terms. In other words, a EULA that states, "By clicking 'Accept,' we get to charge whatever we feel like chargeing you without any prior notice" or "By clicking through this wall of words we force you agree that you will have to arbitrate the contract in person in California (note California, New mexico, Arizona Washington state Oregon and Nevada residents must file for arbitration in Main on exactly December 25) where the registration fee for arbitration is over 3000USD" will not fly.

3) Lastly, the company must be able to demonstrate that the user was A) aware of the EULA, B) read it, and C) willingly agreed to it.



why do you think click through agreements have 1 or more checkoffs and/or make you manualy force the eula to scroll in order to prove that you either actualy read the bloody thing, or decided to deliberatly ignore it. (after all you do have the legal right to not read a contract before you agree to if if you voluntarily so choose)

 

[Matt K]

SIGH!.......

Not to be an ass, but I'm not sure what lawschool course you took but in the one I took two years ago (I'm now a bar certified attorney) shrink wrap licenses were typically invalid especially in consumer goods. While there may be cases to the contrary, shrink wrap licenses violate the UCC which has been adopted in all jurisdictions (and typically more recently so it overrules that case law).

 

[UncannyGarlic]

And that's too bad, but publishers aren't obliged to anything. It pisses me off too sometimes when there's no demo, or when there's DRM. What do I do? I just don't buy it. But because I didn't buy it, I also do not have the right to play it. Simple as that.

Agreed, I'm just saying that there are situations in which it's understandable that people pirate. I try to avoid games with DRM (not always sucessful as NWN2 proves) and am not even interested in tempting myself (I have an itch to play Spore but I refuse to get the game by any means). Demos really do need to become common practice though, it would cut out what, in my view, is the most legitamite reason people have to pirate. Researching a game before purchase without a demo is a lot more work than simply trying the game out and for people who don't have the time for the research, piracy for games without demos can be the only option for trying it (some companies like Stardock allow you to return the game within 30 days if your not satisfied so they fall into the demo group).

Now that's a while ago, first time I heard of it. However, the court explicitly state one requirement of the shrink-wrap agreement being upheld was the option for Zeidenberg to return the product if he did not agree with the license agreement. This is not the case for video games, so this case is not similar to EULA cases.

Well, according to Wikipedia, the US has no general decision about EULA's but most EULA's don't aren't legally enforcable because most overstep their bounds or say that any changes to the EULA you have to abide by and that they can change it at any time without notifying you. There is also the matter of EULA's being agreed to after purchase which also almost always invalidates them (return clauses have gone both ways).

It's not the same thing, though. It's not just when EULAs break laws that they become invalid, it's when they try to do more than what consumer code allows them to that they invalidate themselves, even if said requirements would be legal in an individual contract.

Well said.

You're confusing the issue: in both cases, I'm consuming a product that has been paid for under legal circumstances. You're turning this into pointless semantics this way.

Well pirated games have been paid for under legal circumstances, they've just been redistributed under illegal circumstances. Really the issue is one purchase, one product which borrowing and second hand sales uphold while piracy does not.

 

[Mord_Sith]

Who said I was stealing it?

I already said I am not nor am I ever going to touch Fallout 3 even if I'm paid to do so, mostly on principle mind you but my reasoning aside I don't plan on even looking at that steaming POS 2.

I argue that in my opinion, most pirates are either the down & outs, or those that want to try before they buy.

Would you buy a couch from a picture book in the store without actually going to sit on it and see how it feels and whatever else you do when testing furnature?

Would you buy a car without being able to test-drive it?

Would you buy a computer without having at least a 30 day warranty in case something fritzes?

I'm sorry but there is nothing gamers can do as far as software return policies, so many resort to test-driving the software, as I'm sure even you BN have a tale of woe about a bad purchase of a game you thought would be good.

We're buying manufactured product and we're being treated as if it was custom made, no returns, no refunds, only a crappy EB coupon if you're lucky.

I'm sorry I was raised with very little cash, well below the poverty line for most of my life, and I cannot justify buying crap on a whim, when that same money could be going towards my next meal if things got tight all of a sudden.

I would never dream of selling off my collection of games, as I have this nasty habit of once I get rid of something all of a sudden I get the urge to play it again, it's quite irritating sometimes.

Anyways my point is that consumers have wizened up about the need to pre-test to screen the crap and reward those that actually deserve it when they make a good and proper game, because reviewers and companies aren't going to give you the truth, or even the half-truth, they don't even try anymore, they just shovel.

And that good sirs, is why I don't respect lying scumbags in business, and why corporate integrity is so bloody important, because yes there has been piracy for a long time now, as long as there has been a medium, there are attempts to duplicate other mediums to turn a profit or simply for their own enjoyment, however this explosion of it is directly resultant towards both a greater understanding of the technology amongst the masses as well as a medium that is grossly missed the mark on quality for almost a decade now, churning out titles faster than an organ grinder with a mission!

 

[Heldelance]

It's annoying that companies try to stem piracy by using idiotic measures that punish the user. Like Spore, I would not touch that with a ten-foot pole, and I've been looking forward to it ever since I first got wind of it.

One thing that companies just don't seem to understand is that no matter what they do, it will most likely turn up pirated. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Now, what's even more annoying is that companies expect us to pay a lot for a game that's like a picture book. They don't even give you the added extras that the older games gave, thick manuals rich with backstory and whatnot.

Another form of DRM they could probably try is to forget EVERY form of anti-piracy for the game and add like a map/book/etc to the game's box and make it unplayable without it, like those old games.

 

[TheWesDude]

that kind of drm never works anymore, people just scan the manuals.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

A CD-Key for auto-updaters, online play, and tech support is really the way to go. Is it perfect? No, but at least it works alright (for the latter two moreso than the former), is easy, and is noninvasive.