Forums » Suggestions
Could we please add an option which states agree with the EULA untill a next change, be this update to eula or client update, so i don't contineously have to click ok at the eula.
Just add an option which you can tick and then won't ever show the eula unless it gets altered. Default is not tacked. Getting tired of seeing that same darned eula for the umptieth time :(.
Just add an option which you can tick and then won't ever show the eula unless it gets altered. Default is not tacked. Getting tired of seeing that same darned eula for the umptieth time :(.
Double-click VO client, hit "play vendetta" in updater, type password, hit enter, hit tab, hit enter, select player, click "play". Excluding the updater run time and the loading of textures, it takes no more than 10 seconds. Not an urgent issue, nor is it a good idea legally. Forcing players to click on the "accept" button gives Guild the grounds to point at the EULA or RoC if a player breaks a rule and is punished for it and say "You clicked 'accept', therefore you were bound legally to follow these rules" and be able to ward off lawsuits.
IANAL, but no, it doesn't really legally bind anything... EULA is probably not legally binding to all in EU, and almost definitely not binding to anyone in UK (violates contract act), so from my point of view it is simply an annoyance. At least that's what they told us in CS2xx Current Computer Practices course 3 years ago. What probably is legally binding is the agreement you click by when you sign up for membership. None of those have been tested in courts properly yet though, and so it can not be said for sure.
Having said that, I don't mind it at all, some parts are slightly funny, but overall the EULA is not too outrageous, and I would probably agree with it even if it was legally binding.
As for it annoying and coming up every time, I do not see it as a problem. It especially makes sense if more than one person share an account, and can be clicked away very easily.
Having said that, I don't mind it at all, some parts are slightly funny, but overall the EULA is not too outrageous, and I would probably agree with it even if it was legally binding.
As for it annoying and coming up every time, I do not see it as a problem. It especially makes sense if more than one person share an account, and can be clicked away very easily.
FYI, EULA is (and claims related there to are adjudicated) subject to U.S. state contract law, regardless of the country/fucked-up collective from which you access it. Said state contract law renders it enforceable as a general principle (I'd have to comb through it to dream up the holes that inevitably exist).
lecter is right (i hate saying that) based on the fact that the service (/ point of sale) is actually offered in the states.
if there were servers around the globe, that would be different.
if there were servers around the globe, that would be different.
I agree with Renegade. There is no need for us to have to re-agree each time we start the game. First of all if it WERE legal binding it would be remain legally binding until there was a change to the service. Secondly, legality has very little to do with it. If the devs feel you are in violation of the EULA they just ban you... they need no legal justification for that. This is a private server and private game that they wholly own and as such they can do whatever they damn well please. There is no contract or contract law involved to my knowledge. (but IANAL... Lecter on the other hand IS (or a law student anyways)) Ummm... so maybe contract law is involved? Whatever... the bit about the devs doing what they wish with their servers and game still stands.
EDIT: After reading Lecter's reply and rereading this, I would ask you to kindly disregard this post, as it mostly BS... My second one is better I hope. ;)
EDIT: After reading Lecter's reply and rereading this, I would ask you to kindly disregard this post, as it mostly BS... My second one is better I hope. ;)
AFAIK there is no method of using US laws against a contract to which US laws do not apply. When I agree to a contract in UK, it is subject to UK laws, regardless of what country my signed contract then gets transmitted to. Even if it has a statement "this contract is subject to US laws" it is completely null as it violates UK laws to begin with, and therefore holds no legal value. Within US I don't know, it might hold some legal weight.
[EDIT: Guild is of course only subject to US laws, me trying to claim that they violated a UK law would be equally absurd.]
[EDIT: Take as example allofmp3.com. They operate in Russia, and are a completely legal company in Russia, as US copyright law has not legal value there. They sell music they have full rights to sell. They may legally sell to anyone in Russia. Where the music they sell then gets transmitted to is neither their responsibility nor their problem. When UK tried taking them to court last year they got laughed out of the courtroom.]
[EDIT: Guild is of course only subject to US laws, me trying to claim that they violated a UK law would be equally absurd.]
[EDIT: Take as example allofmp3.com. They operate in Russia, and are a completely legal company in Russia, as US copyright law has not legal value there. They sell music they have full rights to sell. They may legally sell to anyone in Russia. Where the music they sell then gets transmitted to is neither their responsibility nor their problem. When UK tried taking them to court last year they got laughed out of the courtroom.]
Rooty: First, legally binding is a less than binary concept. Repetition of agreement has probative value when a court is determining assent to be bound by the terms of a writing. Second, while the Devs can certainly "just ban me", I can "just sue them" for damages and recoupment of money invested should they "just ban me" in violation of the user agreement. Contract law is what defines the responsibilities and entitlements of both sides of the server/game: we have some of each, GSW has some of each. True, they have a good deal of discretion in how they run their game, but it is not unlimited. Would you pay $10 a month to play a game where the Devs could do whatever they wanted, when ever they wanted and without justification? Of course not--that's why there's a written agreement between players and Devs here.
Antz: If you phrased "no method of using US laws against a contract to which US laws do not apply" more cogently, I'd have an easier time explaining why you're incorrect. But, I think I got the gist of your error. Choice of Law provisions in contracts (or, as a matter of default if parties are sloppy, choice of law rules... which are a royal bitch) govern the applicable law for your contracts. Not where you were when you clicked on the dotted line. It does not violate UK law, since citizens of the UK are free to contract with others around the globe and to choose the law applicable to such contracts. From the EULA (fyi, Convention on the International Sale of Goods or CISG for short is one of the more annoying new international codes for sales of goods...think the UN version of the UCC): "16. This Agreement is governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Wisconsin as such laws are applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within Wisconsin between Wisconsin residents. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly disclaimed. Both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin and further agree that any cause of action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin (if under State law) or the Eastern District of Wisconsin (if under federal law). If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced. Our failure to act with respect to a breach by you or others does not waive our right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. You may not assign or transfer this Agreement or your rights hereunder, and any attempt to the contrary is void. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between us and you with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as provided herein, this Agreement may not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties."
Also, the lawsuit would occur in US courts--and once a judgement was rendered in GSW's favor, they could collect it by taking it to a UK court with jurisdiction over you or your property, which would then likely enforce it unless you could come up with some new argument about why it should not be enforced. Fun options might include arguing that while the EULA is subject to US contract law, your assent to any contract can only be governed by UK contract law, which might in turn deny the validity of "click on the dotted line" assent. However, your payment to GSW in return for services would probably constitue acceptance of the terms of the contract, giving rise to a contract implied in fact, yadda yadda yadda. The finer points of UK contract law are not my strong point; the point is, regardless of where you clicked on the button, EULA is governed by Wisconsin contract law, even if you're a UK citizen. And you can see why this is the proper result, merely from policy grounds: if it were not the case, no rational international economic party would deal with UK citizens via contracts, unless of course they liked UK law.
Which brings me to a final bit about the utter irrelevance--nay, idiocy--of your Russian mp3.com example. You're correct that Russian courts do not reconize US copyright law. That's one reason that the only way most IP makes it into Russia from the US is by blackmarket transations: few would sell a DVD to Russian markets without copyright protections. You're wrong about the legality of the site in the US--probably in the UK, too; see, e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/allofmp3_lawsuit/ --however. If I own the copyright to a song sold on that site, I could go to US federal court and sue for damages. I would win a judgement against the site. Then I'd have the problem of enforcing said judgment... in Russia, it would be worth only the paper it was written on. In the US or a country with reciprocity agreements with the US, I would take the judgement and use it to have the court seize and sell assets or funds of the defendant site within their jurisdiction and then have them transfered to me, up to satisfaction of the judgment.
You can bet that the defendants behind allofmp3.com keep all their funds and assets in good ole Mother Russia ;)
Oh, PS: you could easily take GSW to court in the UK (though maybe not for EULA breaches; maybe so, however, if you conceded that the UK court had to apply US law and argued that this was the most convienent forum), assuming they'd engaged in some activity in or had sufficient connection to the UK to establish jurisdiction. The bitch of it would be, again, satisfying any judgment rendered.
Antz: If you phrased "no method of using US laws against a contract to which US laws do not apply" more cogently, I'd have an easier time explaining why you're incorrect. But, I think I got the gist of your error. Choice of Law provisions in contracts (or, as a matter of default if parties are sloppy, choice of law rules... which are a royal bitch) govern the applicable law for your contracts. Not where you were when you clicked on the dotted line. It does not violate UK law, since citizens of the UK are free to contract with others around the globe and to choose the law applicable to such contracts. From the EULA (fyi, Convention on the International Sale of Goods or CISG for short is one of the more annoying new international codes for sales of goods...think the UN version of the UCC): "16. This Agreement is governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Wisconsin as such laws are applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within Wisconsin between Wisconsin residents. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly disclaimed. Both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin and further agree that any cause of action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin (if under State law) or the Eastern District of Wisconsin (if under federal law). If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced. Our failure to act with respect to a breach by you or others does not waive our right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. You may not assign or transfer this Agreement or your rights hereunder, and any attempt to the contrary is void. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between us and you with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as provided herein, this Agreement may not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties."
Also, the lawsuit would occur in US courts--and once a judgement was rendered in GSW's favor, they could collect it by taking it to a UK court with jurisdiction over you or your property, which would then likely enforce it unless you could come up with some new argument about why it should not be enforced. Fun options might include arguing that while the EULA is subject to US contract law, your assent to any contract can only be governed by UK contract law, which might in turn deny the validity of "click on the dotted line" assent. However, your payment to GSW in return for services would probably constitue acceptance of the terms of the contract, giving rise to a contract implied in fact, yadda yadda yadda. The finer points of UK contract law are not my strong point; the point is, regardless of where you clicked on the button, EULA is governed by Wisconsin contract law, even if you're a UK citizen. And you can see why this is the proper result, merely from policy grounds: if it were not the case, no rational international economic party would deal with UK citizens via contracts, unless of course they liked UK law.
Which brings me to a final bit about the utter irrelevance--nay, idiocy--of your Russian mp3.com example. You're correct that Russian courts do not reconize US copyright law. That's one reason that the only way most IP makes it into Russia from the US is by blackmarket transations: few would sell a DVD to Russian markets without copyright protections. You're wrong about the legality of the site in the US--probably in the UK, too; see, e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/allofmp3_lawsuit/ --however. If I own the copyright to a song sold on that site, I could go to US federal court and sue for damages. I would win a judgement against the site. Then I'd have the problem of enforcing said judgment... in Russia, it would be worth only the paper it was written on. In the US or a country with reciprocity agreements with the US, I would take the judgement and use it to have the court seize and sell assets or funds of the defendant site within their jurisdiction and then have them transfered to me, up to satisfaction of the judgment.
You can bet that the defendants behind allofmp3.com keep all their funds and assets in good ole Mother Russia ;)
Oh, PS: you could easily take GSW to court in the UK (though maybe not for EULA breaches; maybe so, however, if you conceded that the UK court had to apply US law and argued that this was the most convienent forum), assuming they'd engaged in some activity in or had sufficient connection to the UK to establish jurisdiction. The bitch of it would be, again, satisfying any judgment rendered.
Yeah Lecter, I though of the lawsuit issue and considered putting in something about it and how the EULA was primarily there in case of such an occurrence, however I thought that the likelihood of someone taking Guild to court over such a frivolous thing as a $10 per month GAME was so remote as to be not worth mentioning. But then... that's why we have lawyers eh?
As I sort of said in my post, the bit about contract law not being involved is incorrect... I should have just removed that line maybe. However, short of some really really bored person who wishes to waste a lot of time and money suing the devs, I still say they can do pretty much whatever they wish with their servers and game. However I never said without any justification. Yes there MUST be an EULA, they must somewhere state their policies or how are we to know what is acceptable?
To get back on topic though, there is no need (even if there is "probative value") for us to keep accepting the EULA. NO other company (that I know of) feels that is necessary. WoW forces you to re-accept each time they update, but not each time you start the application... same for Apple... same for every software company I know of.
But, this is a pretty minor issue and if it costs Guild any significant time or money (consulting lawyers?) to change this... I say forget it, they have better things to spend their time on.
As I sort of said in my post, the bit about contract law not being involved is incorrect... I should have just removed that line maybe. However, short of some really really bored person who wishes to waste a lot of time and money suing the devs, I still say they can do pretty much whatever they wish with their servers and game. However I never said without any justification. Yes there MUST be an EULA, they must somewhere state their policies or how are we to know what is acceptable?
To get back on topic though, there is no need (even if there is "probative value") for us to keep accepting the EULA. NO other company (that I know of) feels that is necessary. WoW forces you to re-accept each time they update, but not each time you start the application... same for Apple... same for every software company I know of.
But, this is a pretty minor issue and if it costs Guild any significant time or money (consulting lawyers?) to change this... I say forget it, they have better things to spend their time on.
I've spent more time reading this thread than I have in all the times I have clicked the EULA button since it appeared.
Thanks for explaining it Lecter! For short clarification:
In UK a contract is only valid if all parties agree on all the terms before the contract comes into action. I agree to EULA after I pay my $10, which does not follow that.
Furthermore, if I do not agree with it I do not even get my $10 back. So, if the EULA said "Oh, and you owe me $40,000", and I did not agree to it, I would have been effectively cheated out of $10.
In UK I am allowed to say "This is silly, this is not what I agreed to!" and keep playing sticking to original agreement, which is in this case a good thing.
Sorry Whitsler and anyone else whose 10 minutes I have wasted.
In UK a contract is only valid if all parties agree on all the terms before the contract comes into action. I agree to EULA after I pay my $10, which does not follow that.
Furthermore, if I do not agree with it I do not even get my $10 back. So, if the EULA said "Oh, and you owe me $40,000", and I did not agree to it, I would have been effectively cheated out of $10.
In UK I am allowed to say "This is silly, this is not what I agreed to!" and keep playing sticking to original agreement, which is in this case a good thing.
Sorry Whitsler and anyone else whose 10 minutes I have wasted.
Antz-1: "In UK a contract is only valid if all parties agree on all the terms before the contract comes into action. I agree to EULA after I pay my $10, which does not follow that. "
Oh, that's cool. Which contract? What performance? Your $10 is a recurring charge; EULA is a recurring agreement. There's a series of contracts here... good luck convincing a Wisconsin judge (or even an English one) that there's no contract formed before the parties started acting like there was one.
Your second set of lines makes zero sense. I assume that UK contract law still, as it did when US contract law branched off, allows you to recover your restitution interest, assuming you hadn't recieved any of the consideration for which you tendered the $10.
As for the ability to stand on the "original agreement", I again know that British contract law varies in the ways by which two parties may amend their agreement or simply enter into a new one covering the same situation. However, I'm sure no court has endorsed the rule of "May it please the Court: This is silly!"
Oh, that's cool. Which contract? What performance? Your $10 is a recurring charge; EULA is a recurring agreement. There's a series of contracts here... good luck convincing a Wisconsin judge (or even an English one) that there's no contract formed before the parties started acting like there was one.
Your second set of lines makes zero sense. I assume that UK contract law still, as it did when US contract law branched off, allows you to recover your restitution interest, assuming you hadn't recieved any of the consideration for which you tendered the $10.
As for the ability to stand on the "original agreement", I again know that British contract law varies in the ways by which two parties may amend their agreement or simply enter into a new one covering the same situation. However, I'm sure no court has endorsed the rule of "May it please the Court: This is silly!"
Don't care how much time it costs somebody posting in here in stead of clicking some dumb button for the umptieth time. The point remains, every other online game shows the eula only once in stead of on every login. They show it upon the first time they login/install and every time there is a change to the eula.
Heck normally you should read the entire eula before you click accept and if you have to do that everytime you log in you would sepnd more time reading the eula then posting in here... but people don't do so since they are from nature out lazy.
point remains though, no other company does it... so why does guild need to do it... I know more interesting stuff to diversify from the competition then having to sign the eula time and time again.
Heck normally you should read the entire eula before you click accept and if you have to do that everytime you log in you would sepnd more time reading the eula then posting in here... but people don't do so since they are from nature out lazy.
point remains though, no other company does it... so why does guild need to do it... I know more interesting stuff to diversify from the competition then having to sign the eula time and time again.
Does "every other online game" change as frequently and drastically as Vendetta?
Do the companies that run those other games have a legal department or the time and money to get legal representation?
Do the companies that run those other games have a legal department or the time and money to get legal representation?
Anarchy Online ( http://www.anarchy-online.com/ ) shows EULA at every game startup. There is a workaround that forces it to never be shown, so you don't ever have to agree to it, but I believe it is intended to be shown every time the client runs.
haha, this is silly.
Lecter, you're a student of US law, are you not? How big are you on Swedish law?
While I agree with the EULA, it is not legally binding to me. Why?
Well, you see, the country I live in does not recognize the agreement as signed just because I clicked a button in the software.
While the US laws says I signed it, the laws here say I don't.
The worst the US justice system can do is to lock me out of the US or threaten to fine me if I ever go there, and I have no plans to go there any time soon.
...and don't even think for a moment that the government of this country would extradite me to the US just based on some software EULA!
This does, however, work both ways. I have no legal rights if I am banned from the game, as Guild Software has not signed any contract with me binding them to allow me access to their server.
So, anyway I turn it, I'm still f**t if I void the EULA, and thus have decided not to even consider it.
If playing Vendetta means I have to click a button below some text to be let in, then I'll click the button.
If you want me to sign a copy of the EULA, send it to me in print and I'll return it in it's legally signed form.
Lecter, you're a student of US law, are you not? How big are you on Swedish law?
While I agree with the EULA, it is not legally binding to me. Why?
Well, you see, the country I live in does not recognize the agreement as signed just because I clicked a button in the software.
While the US laws says I signed it, the laws here say I don't.
The worst the US justice system can do is to lock me out of the US or threaten to fine me if I ever go there, and I have no plans to go there any time soon.
...and don't even think for a moment that the government of this country would extradite me to the US just based on some software EULA!
This does, however, work both ways. I have no legal rights if I am banned from the game, as Guild Software has not signed any contract with me binding them to allow me access to their server.
So, anyway I turn it, I'm still f**t if I void the EULA, and thus have decided not to even consider it.
If playing Vendetta means I have to click a button below some text to be let in, then I'll click the button.
If you want me to sign a copy of the EULA, send it to me in print and I'll return it in it's legally signed form.
About Swedish law, it having nothing to do with the common law tradition on which I was trained (cf. UK law), I know nothing. Of course, that's ok, since nobody who would be able to afford my fees would want much to do with Sweden anyway. And as I said, the "worst" the U.S. system could do is render judgment against you and then the fun of trying to satisfy a judgement via the courts of another country could begin. Ugh. Messy.
whistler that has no bearing on the game at all. If you agree to the eula its only usefull to reaccept the eula if there changes anything within the eula. As it is now, you are agreeing to not drive with your feet every time you get in your car... Only if there would be some change to for example make driving with your feet legal in a certain state that you should adjust this agreement to reflect this change. Not every frigging time you get in your car.
Nor does it matter how big your legal department is, if you sign it once or twice or three times... as long as you did the agreement and there is a mention that everyone using your software automatically agrees to the same rules as the current buyer of the application... Not to mention that even if i wanted to be a "dick" and sue vendetta online for some item no eula will hold up as binding.
And antz as you well know exceptions confirm the general rule :D. But hey lets not talk about the 99.9999 other % that do not do this.
Nor does it matter how big your legal department is, if you sign it once or twice or three times... as long as you did the agreement and there is a mention that everyone using your software automatically agrees to the same rules as the current buyer of the application... Not to mention that even if i wanted to be a "dick" and sue vendetta online for some item no eula will hold up as binding.
And antz as you well know exceptions confirm the general rule :D. But hey lets not talk about the 99.9999 other % that do not do this.
I'm happy with Lecter's explanation of how it applies. He only covered how the whole thing looks from his (US) side. From that (correct me if I am wrong) I understood that whilst it may not be legally binding to me in EU, it does legally bind me in US.
So, as long as I don't intend to travel to US I should not worry too much.
So, as long as I don't intend to travel to US I should not worry too much.
Wow. You're all much more worried about this than I am, and I'm a company principle. Anyway, making the user re-sign the EULA adds just a little bit more to the implication that the given person must have seen/agreed to the contents.
We used to have a less-often-seen EULA, and that mostly changed when we revamped the UI, for totally ancillary reasons (if I recall). We'll probably move to a less-often-required system eventually, but for the moment I really don't see it as a huge catastrophic priority. I have to click it too, and I don't even notice it anymore. I'll talk to Ray about it in any case.
We used to have a less-often-seen EULA, and that mostly changed when we revamped the UI, for totally ancillary reasons (if I recall). We'll probably move to a less-often-required system eventually, but for the moment I really don't see it as a huge catastrophic priority. I have to click it too, and I don't even notice it anymore. I'll talk to Ray about it in any case.