5 ms·

Naw, they only sold you a "license to play", not an actual game. That EULA's a killer.

by Zikes 12y ago

bencoder 12y ago
Except if your disk is damaged and you want to download a working version or get a replacement disk, then it's not just a licence, you gotta buy it again. They want it both ways
- msandford 12y ago
  That always drove me nuts. It's got to be one or the other. Seems like there might be an interesting court case to be made by say the Internet Archive: 1. Buy a CD and then damage it 2. Then ask for a new one for free, with proof of the damaged one 3. When they refuse, get your lawyer to send the same request certified mail 4. When they officially refuse, sue in small claims and they'll get it tossed out since "you bought it" (hopefully) 5. Tuck this in your back pocket and start archiving and making them re-playable galore 6. When publisher X who told you it was a sale sues for "hacking" go to court for a summary dismissal based on the previous court case where they argued "hey you bought it!" and a judge might have no choice but to agree I'm sure it wouldn't work, but it'd be nice!
  - Zikes 12y ago
    In this scenario the game disc can still constitute a license, not the actual game. The contents of the disc would simply be a convenient installation method.
    - msandford 12y ago
      Sure, but if it's a license then the disc is only of marginal value and they should replace it for cheap/free since the LICENSE is what constituted most of the cost, not the PHYSICAL MEDIA.
  - iamcurious 12y ago
    Ideas like this make me want to study law. Not to be a lawyer, anymore than I study programming to be a programmer, but to get interesting things done.
noonespecial 12y ago
EULAs aren't laws. I can't agree to something illegal, nor can I agree to give up rights guaranteed to me by law. It all varies by jurisdiction, and fine print designed to obfuscate the fact that it wasn't a sale probably wouldn't hold up even in jurisdictions where it would otherwise be possible. All of this would have to be tested in various jurisdictions in court. The troubling part is, that they are making blanket statements about all reverse engineering of abandon-ware regardless of original EULA or even if there is a party left to injure. We're straying dangerously close to "bank robbers use cars so cars should be illegal" territory.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > EULAs aren't laws. I can't agree to something illegal, nor can I agree to give up rights guaranteed to me by law. Actually, you generally can do the latter, unless the law specifically makes the right not waivable. Contracts, in general, are about giving up rights guaranteed by law.
  - vacri 12y ago
    EULAs can't really be considered the same as contracts in a philosophical sense, since they're presented after sale. Back in the 90s, there was a Microsoft printed EULA that said that breaking the shrinkwrap counted as agreeing to the EULA, but you couldn't access the EULA without breaking the shrinkwrap (and opening the box). :)
- rhino369 12y ago
  You are right that a EULA can't violate the law, but the law doesn't say you get to keep playing it forever or that you can produce derivative copies. Contracts are VERY powerful in this country. The old saying that you can't sign your rights away is totally wrong. The default is that you can sign whatever rights you have away unless it is forbidden under the law.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  They're contracts. Contracts are binding on the signatories. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to accept them. Also, contracts are evaluated based on what they say, not on what you think they ought to say. I'm no fan of the game publishing industry, but just because you don't like the idea that you're buying a license to use the game in a particular way rather than in perpetuity doesn't mean they're breaking the law.
anonbanker 12y ago
odd, none of my NES/SNES/Genesis games came with the license you mentioned. perhaps you can help me out with that?

Naw, they only sold you a "license to play", not an actual game. That EULA's a killer.

by Zikes 12y ago

Naw, they only sold you a "license to play", not an actual game. That EULA's a killer.

Except if your disk is damaged and you want to download a working version or get a replacement disk, then it's not just a licence, you gotta buy it again. They want it both ways

msandford 12y ago
That always drove me nuts. It's got to be one or the other. Seems like there might be an interesting court case to be made by say the Internet Archive: 1. Buy a CD and then damage it 2. Then ask for a new one for free, with proof of the damaged one 3. When they refuse, get your lawyer to send the same request certified mail 4. When they officially refuse, sue in small claims and they'll get it tossed out since "you bought it" (hopefully) 5. Tuck this in your back pocket and start archiving and making them re-playable galore 6. When publisher X who told you it was a sale sues for "hacking" go to court for a summary dismissal based on the previous court case where they argued "hey you bought it!" and a judge might have no choice but to agree I'm sure it wouldn't work, but it'd be nice!
- Zikes 12y ago
  In this scenario the game disc can still constitute a license, not the actual game. The contents of the disc would simply be a convenient installation method.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Sure, but if it's a license then the disc is only of marginal value and they should replace it for cheap/free since the LICENSE is what constituted most of the cost, not the PHYSICAL MEDIA.
- iamcurious 12y ago
  Ideas like this make me want to study law. Not to be a lawyer, anymore than I study programming to be a programmer, but to get interesting things done.

noonespecial 12y ago

EULAs aren't laws. I can't agree to something illegal, nor can I agree to give up rights guaranteed to me by law. It all varies by jurisdiction, and fine print designed to obfuscate the fact that it wasn't a sale probably wouldn't hold up even in jurisdictions where it would otherwise be possible. All of this would have to be tested in various jurisdictions in court. The troubling part is, that they are making blanket statements about all reverse engineering of abandon-ware regardless of original EULA or even if there is a party left to injure. We're straying dangerously close to "bank robbers use cars so cars should be illegal" territory.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> EULAs aren't laws. I can't agree to something illegal, nor can I agree to give up rights guaranteed to me by law. Actually, you generally can do the latter, unless the law specifically makes the right not waivable. Contracts, in general, are about giving up rights guaranteed by law.
- vacri 12y ago
  EULAs can't really be considered the same as contracts in a philosophical sense, since they're presented after sale. Back in the 90s, there was a Microsoft printed EULA that said that breaking the shrinkwrap counted as agreeing to the EULA, but you couldn't access the EULA without breaking the shrinkwrap (and opening the box). :)
rhino369 12y ago
You are right that a EULA can't violate the law, but the law doesn't say you get to keep playing it forever or that you can produce derivative copies. Contracts are VERY powerful in this country. The old saying that you can't sign your rights away is totally wrong. The default is that you can sign whatever rights you have away unless it is forbidden under the law.
anigbrowl 12y ago
They're contracts. Contracts are binding on the signatories. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to accept them. Also, contracts are evaluated based on what they say, not on what you think they ought to say. I'm no fan of the game publishing industry, but just because you don't like the idea that you're buying a license to use the game in a particular way rather than in perpetuity doesn't mean they're breaking the law.

anonbanker 12y ago

odd, none of my NES/SNES/Genesis games came with the license you mentioned. perhaps you can help me out with that?