| 17 OCT 2006 at 9:05pm |
alkis21Schattenjger
Posts : 2112
Joined: 23 OCT 2002
Location: GR
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Aya (13 OCT 2006 7:08pm)
Originally Posted By Lucien21 (13 OCT 2006 5:02pm)
You mean like SCUMMVM, DOSBOX, UAE, Virtual PC, Dual booting etc that we need to play the CD versions.
I means it's not like that a hassle : :
it is, but there are two major differences:
1. the developer didn't make you do that... when you bought the game you could play right away... this happens because of the pcs evolving
Actually, it happens because of bad processor-dependent programming.. not that that's in any way related to the point you're trying to make or this thread.
|
| 18 OCT 2006 at 6:46pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4952
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By MrLipid (14 OCT 2006 7:25pm)
Originally Posted By Aya (14 OCT 2006 5:45pm)
...it's still my RIGHT as an owner of the game to play it WHENEVER i want, without needing to have any other thought or worry about it
It is not your right.
You are not the owner of the game.
You only hold a license that allows you to play the game as long as those who issued the license allow it.
Whether the game remains available to play is up to those who issue the license.
That is the hard core interpretation from the developer/distributor point of view. But it's the 'It is not your right' part that has not been fully tested in court. For instance, if you pay for a game that you have downloaded and before the game starts up everytime, it checks with a Steam-like server, but one day comes when the internet checker either shuts down or says 'No' then I think there will be lawsuits that further outline 'fair-use'. Some (like me) would say that unless it is clearly spelled out that I am only renting a game, then the buyer has the right to play the copy of the game he/she paid for until he/she gives it away and that for the developer/distributor saying they have the right to sell you an online-based copy and then later disable it is a crock!
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 18 OCT 2006 at 6:59pm |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | It may be a crock, but your rights with regard to any given pile of code are spelled out in the EULA. If you agree to it, you live with it.
I purchased a copy of JFK: Reloaded. It was a game that only worked if connected to a server. Once the contest tied to the game ended, so did the operation of the servers and the game was rendered inert.
Did I like that? No. Did I understand that there was a strong likelihood that the game would no longer work once the contest was over? Yes.
As for "fair-use," I wouldn't look for too much there. The terror over song-swapping seems to be narrowing "fair-use" rights to the point that one will need to buy a new copy of a song for every player one wants to play it on.
Not a happy state of affairs.
|
| 18 OCT 2006 at 7:09pm |
| Deleted User | And Mr. Lipid you must understand that different countries have different laws. Here for example you really OWN the game when you buy it. That doesn't mean you are allowed to change the code or distribute it further or similar but it means you have all rights to use the CD/DVD you bought "for all eternity" on your computer, as Aya phrased it. I admit there should be distinguishes between offline and online games who require a server you play on. When you buy such a game like for example Guild Wars you know that you can not play till all eternity but only till the gameservers are shut down. You accept that limitation because it's the only way these games can be played. However you could still install the game in 20 years or so on your computer, certainly to no avail since it wouldn't find a server. But offline games or games with an offline mode are a totally different matter. They simply shouldn't connect to the internet for whatever reasons. I paid for them - I use them, thats it and thats my right and they can't limit this right to a certain time period - of course they can can pay me my money back when they disable the game but would they? Imagine a representative of i.e. Columbia coming to your house and trashing all your music CDs which are older then 10 years....
|
| 18 OCT 2006 at 7:56pm |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | I completely agree that offline games have no business checking in with a server. And, if they don't check in, the only other way I could imagine them rendering themselves inoperable would be a bit of code that says, "Time's up!' and the game dies. And, if you agreed to this in the EULA, you have no recourse.
What interests me in all this is that it is very easy for the purchasers of games to assume that they have unlimited rights. In effect, they do.
Consider abandonware. It's available because there is no one left on the company side to pursue the intellectual property claims. Abandonware is a violation of the law, but without a party to bring a claim, the crime goes unprosecuted. The process of bringing a claim is more costly that any damages that might be recovered, so, why bother?
These are largely uncharted waters and it will be fascinating to see how the courts and the law and society sort all this out.
|
| 18 OCT 2006 at 9:22pm |
KarstenSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 347
Joined: 23 SEP 2006
Location: DK
Status : Offline | HI
In Denmark, where I live, the copyright laws are different from those of the US & other countries. I have bought several games which said that this program ? is only licensed to you, not sold. (in the EULA). And I just stood ????
Firstly, it is not a program, is is a software, a game, which I have paid for. And hence, I own said game. I mean, when you a buy a car, you own the car, don't you. (actually, the bank owns the car because of the money lent in the bank but that's another story )
Secondly, no EULA in any game can make void the laws of the land. And as an European, I must admit that I'm a little bit sad (& mad) that a certain country is trying to export their copyright laws to the rest of the world....
(And as far as a certain CEO of Microsoft goes, I really don't have anything to say about his idea about 'software licensing' (in the US), since luckily, I live in Denmark, Europe, where the copyright laws are different from those of the US).
Thirdly, what if say Lucasarts or Obsidian or EA someday decided that they would recall all their games 'licensed' from the people who once bought them. This would mean that all games being licensed to me or my neighbour from say Lucasarts must be given back to Lucas Arts(tm) - since, according to the EULA, we don't OWN the game, we have just licensed the game from Lucas Arts. Very, very annoying.
However, with online gaming, like World of Warcraft, and Guild Wars, things do, IMHO, look a little bit different. Normally you have to connect to a server to play the game. And it makes perfect sense to state that you only can play (the game) as long
as the server is in use & functioning.
Sometimes I've rent DVD-movies from my local Blockbuster videostore. And in nearly half of them, there is announcement, a message, at the beginning of the movie, saying that 'it is forbidden to copy this DVD'. However, by Danish law you're allowed to
make backup copies of any digital entertainment, if you have bought it. This means you may take legal copies of your movie DVD, a backup copy of your DVD (or CD-game) or your music CDs. However, if the software has a copy protection lock on it, you may not break this in order for you to take a (legal) copy.
I know many people who wants to take copies of say their games, movie dvs, music cds and such, but can't or won't since they risk breaking the law. (by making one or two copies of say a game dvd - for personal use only).
The point being that yes, the game industri once told people to make backup of the software, the game. And now it is telling people that this is illegal ?? Or better:
People are very confused about this, so they do what they themselves think is correct thus making backup copies of digital software like games, movies, and music on dvds and such.
Of course, I do not OWN the game itself, since I do not own the code to the game.
The developers do, of course, much like a writer of book owns the original manuscrip
to the book I bought in the bookstore yesterday. What I buy in the bookstore is technically a copy of the writer's manuscript, much the same as the game I bought today, technically is a copy of the code etc. with which the developers made the game.
If we didn't have ways of mass copying books and games etc. we would still be in the 1300's in which the monks in the cell in the cloisters wrote the code (for the books, though), by hand.
The point being that when I buy a game at the bookstore, there is no EULA attached to the book saying that this book is only 'licensed to me'. I own the book, I bought
(or technically, the copy of the original manuscript). Exactly the same thing must be valid for games bought in a game-store. I fail to see the difference here --- or actually the ONLY difference is that the book is analog (not digital) and the game is digital (not analog).
Karsten
|
| 19 OCT 2006 at 1:18am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4952
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By MrLipid (18 OCT 2006 6:59pm)
It may be a crock, but your rights with regard to any given pile of code are spelled out in the EULA. If you agree to it, you live with it.
I purchased a copy of JFK: Reloaded. It was a game that only worked if connected to a server. Once the contest tied to the game ended, so did the operation of the servers and the game was rendered inert.
Did I like that? No. Did I understand that there was a strong likelihood that the game would no longer work once the contest was over? Yes.
As for "fair-use," I wouldn't look for too much there. The terror over song-swapping seems to be narrowing "fair-use" rights to the point that one will need to buy a new copy of a song for every player one wants to play it on.
Not a happy state of affairs.
Just because something is spelled out in an EULA doesn't lock you into everything in it any more than the fine print on the back of commercial parking lot tickets saying that they have no liability for anything that happens to your car. The point being that a vendor may say that they can disable the game that you thought you purchased because they hold the license, but I'm here to tell you that if there is an attempt for that to become a widespread activity, the courts will eventually get to rule on it. My guess is that any court ruling will find in favor of the concept that unless one is informed that they are only 'renting' the game, the purchaser expects to get a game that won't self-destruct in the future.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 19 OCT 2006 at 1:41am |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By SirDave (19 OCT 2006 1:17am)
Originally Posted By MrLipid (18 OCT 2006 6:59pm)
It may be a crock, but your rights with regard to any given pile of code are spelled out in the EULA. If you agree to it, you live with it.
I purchased a copy of JFK: Reloaded. It was a game that only worked if connected to a server. Once the contest tied to the game ended, so did the operation of the servers and the game was rendered inert.
Did I like that? No. Did I understand that there was a strong likelihood that the game would no longer work once the contest was over? Yes.
As for "fair-use," I wouldn't look for too much there. The terror over song-swapping seems to be narrowing "fair-use" rights to the point that one will need to buy a new copy of a song for every player one wants to play it on.
Not a happy state of affairs.
Just because something is spelled out in an EULA doesn't lock you into everything in it any more than the fine print on the back of commercial parking lot tickets saying that they have no liability for anything that happens to your car. The point being that a vendor may say that they can disable the game that you thought you purchased because they hold the license, but I'm here to tell you that if there is an attempt for that to become a widespread activity, the courts will eventually get to rule on it. My guess is that any court ruling will find in favor of the concept that unless one is informed that they are only 'renting' the game, the purchaser expects to get a game that won't self-destruct in the future.
Microsoft has been very successful with its EULA. No matter how many critical documents are lost due to failures in Word or Excel or PowerPoint, Microsoft bears no responsibility.
And that's for serious work. A game that blows up? Where's the damage? You paid a few bucks, it worked for a while, and now it doesn't. You plan to spend hundreds of dollars trying to recover a fraction of what you are spending to recover it? Not likely.
As I wrote, most games don't blow up, even if the publisher goes under. And if the publisher goes under, good luck trying to recover anything. You are not a secured creditor. You are just someone who bought a product from a now defunct company.
For most games, the whole license vs. ownership issue is moot. For those downloaded games which depend on contact with a server, well, caveat emptor.
|
| 19 OCT 2006 at 5:06pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4952
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By MrLipid (19 OCT 2006 1:41am)
For most games, the whole license vs. ownership issue is moot. For those downloaded games which depend on contact with a server, well, caveat emptor.
No disagreement there.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 20 OCT 2006 at 7:47pm |
anthonyJourneyman
Posts : 1270
Joined: 11 JUN 2003
Status : Offline | I don't believe that the issue here is the difference in copyright laws.
I don't think the US copyright law addresses the question of whether a person who buys software is an "owner", with the right to use it in perpetuity, or a licensee, whose right to use can be limited to a fixed term of years. That issue depends on the agreement reached between the buyer and seller at the point of purchase.
EULAs are typically not agreed to at the point of purchase. Rather, they are usually first made known to the buyer after she has purchased the software, returned home, unwrapped it and tried to install it on her computer. In these circumstances, a court (regardless of the country) may not deem those terms as binding on the buyer, even if she clicks "I agree", particularly if the terms are at variance with the customer's normal expectations.
But if the consumer knew at the time of purchase that the software could only be used for five years, I don't see why that term could not be binding. I would be surprised if countries have laws that render null and void licensing provisions that are agreed to by buyers and sellers. If those laws do exist, they provide no benefit to citizens. That is because what will happen is that sellers will no longer sell their software in those countries, much to the detriment of its citizens.
|
| 20 OCT 2006 at 7:53pm |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | It would be interesting to see how many court decisions involve EULAs and what the outcomes of those decisions were.
|
| 21 OCT 2006 at 6:20pm |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | I've done a bit of digging and courts seem to side with the terms of whatever EULA is involved.
HERE is an interesting site that closely examines the fine print.
|
| 22 OCT 2006 at 5:45pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | MrLipid,
Following your link led me ***here***. It's a discussion of the Vista EULA.
Are there any differences between what's listed there and what MS is doing with XP through its updates?
|
| 23 OCT 2006 at 1:51pm |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Jenny100,
Good question. Without sifting through the blizzard of updates that MS is currently issuing for XP, I couldn't say. Wouldn't surprise me, though. MS has been committed to locking down both its OS and its Apps for quite some time. The goal seems to be the creation of a PC that behaves like an XBox that runs Office.
More likely, though, the patching and updating is an effort to simply keep XP on its feet until Vista ships. It seems doubtful that XP could be made as secure (or user unfriendly) as Vista through updates and patches. Nor would it be wise, given how many organizations have installed XP on what would probably not be Vista-ready systems. XP is sliding into the same dust bin currently occupied by 3.1, 95, 98, ME, and NT.
|
| 23 OCT 2006 at 8:33pm |
anthonyJourneyman
Posts : 1270
Joined: 11 JUN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By MrLipid (20 OCT 2006 7:53pm)
It would be interesting to see how many court decisions involve EULAs and what the outcomes of those decisions were.
I don't know how reliable wikipedia is when it comes to summarizing legal issues but here is its take:
"The [en]forceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91).... A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable.: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com)...."
(citations omitted)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA
|
| 2 NOV 2006 at 4:03am |
| Deleted User | [img]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d106/papabrody1/clapping.gif[/img]
That guy? Fourth row back on the far left?
Cocaine.
(Maybe speed.)
|
| 2 NOV 2006 at 4:17am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By MrLipid (23 OCT 2006 1:51pm)
[...] More likely, though, the patching and updating is an effort to simply keep XP on its feet until Vista ships.
I think MS is aware that the XP user base will be around for a long while still. It behoves them to maintain it even after Vista ships.
It seems doubtful that XP could be made as secure (or user unfriendly) as Vista through updates and patches. Nor would it be wise, given how many organizations have installed XP on what would probably not be Vista-ready systems.
Agreed.
XP is sliding into the same dust bin currently occupied by 3.1, 95, 98, ME, and NT.
Eventually, but that's really a long way off. There's a schedule up on one of MS's sites, and I can't find it now, but I'm willing to bet that it will be years before they drop XP (and Server 2003) support.
|
| 2 NOV 2006 at 1:30pm |
MarkGuild Master
Posts : 3839
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Location: US, Georgia
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (2 NOV 2006 4:03am)
That guy? Fourth row back on the far left?
And what's the lady doing next to him?
Please proofread your posts carefully to see if you any words out.
|
| 2 NOV 2006 at 2:20pm |
MrLipidPrivate Detective
Posts : 666
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (2 NOV 2006 4:17am)
Originally Posted By MrLipid (23 OCT 2006 1:51pm)
XP is sliding into the same dust bin currently occupied by 3.1, 95, 98, ME, and NT.
Eventually, but that's really a long way off. There's a schedule up on one of MS's sites, and I can't find it now, but I'm willing to bet that it will be years before they drop XP (and Server 2003) support.
They've already dropped support for XP SP1. XP SP2, according to Jim Allchin, Microsoft's Co-President, Platforms & Services Division, is actually XP Release 2. The massive revision of the OS was called a service pack just to get it out the door. It's actually a different OS...which explains a lot.
All that said, I agree that XP will be with us a long, long time, supported or not.
|
| 2 NOV 2006 at 11:39pm |
| Deleted User | Hmmmm, I'd like to see a reference for that claim.
From the Microsoft Support Lifecycle page on WinXP Pro:
"Mainstream support will end two years after the next version of this product is released. Extended support will end five years after mainstream support ends."
Service pack support generally ends when it's replaced by another service pack.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=6794
|
