The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Blood Bowl Serials controversy!
Posts
This is dragging everything back into legal grounds, where it doesn't really belong. The company is selling you absolutely nothing but a key which will probably allow you access to Cyanide's game. Cyanide does not have any sort of implicit agreement with you over anything. The whole software model is "We'll probably provide you a service, provided we don't decide to terminate that service for any reason we feel like." What you end up with is consumers deciding whether or not they value what the company might offer them/whether they trust them to continue to provide it. I don't think there's even a legal argument in there. It's more, "Is Cyanide protecting their ability to make money as best they can, and are they going to piss off enough of the customer base to make people not buy their game anymore?"
Terrible analogy. Being in possession of the keys to a car does not give you ownership of that car, or even the right to take it for a spin down the road.
The discussion has been mostly about whether this website's operation is somehow illegitimate (either by statute or by point of contract somewhere along the line) because people recognize it probably doesn't make much sense to run around banning people based on where they legitimately bought their software.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I mean, I don't know if this is the disconnect, but the EULA is the license. If they're not sending it to you, you don't have the license. I don't see why the key would be implied to some kind of incarnation of the EULA, any more than the software, the box, the disc or the shrink wrap would be.
The keys to a car in no way represent your ownership of the car. There's an actual title establishing the legal owner. Likewise, the keys to a house let you in, but they don't mean you own the house. The actual agreement (i.e., the deed) is what says you own the house.
That's just it, it's not opening them up to any legal action. The website's operation is based entirely on the good-will of the service provider (in this case Cyanide.) While the website has successfully operated on the fringe for other games, it got busted by Cyanide in this case. Part of the reason it probably gets away with this more often is Cyanide had to provoke the anger of the customers who bought keys on the cheap by banning them. Those customers aren't mad at the company that sold them a key in a rather circuitous way, they're mad at Cyanide.
Someone else raises an interesting point, that the second-hand key vendor doesn't even advertise that you're buying the game from them. They advertise that you can buy a key if yours stopped working for some reason. That strikes me as similar to the disclaimer piracy sites often have, that they're offering files for people who already legitimately bought them, but need a replacement. It's super dodgy, and I just don't see how you can be surprised that it didn't work out. There is no reason that Cyanide would have gone to market with a sales system in which you could either pick to pay $15 or $50. Buyers tried to find a loophole, and may have found that loophole closed off right-quick and in their faces.
Just a thought here, but i'm popping in 1/3 way through here , but, isnt the key in effect the license to play?
like the title to a car? or a deed to a house? so to speak.
Short answer is no.
No, I'd think the key would be like the keys and the EULA would be like the title or the deed. The license to play is in effect the license to play. You don't get the key and you don't get the software for the same reason you don't get the key or the car/house -- you haven't paid for the license.
I'm not playing dumb here or anything, and if its answered earlier i'll go look again, but i'm just curious for clarification.
You have no implicit rights. The key is a security method (like the key of a car) to try to prevent unauthorized users from playing the game without having bought it. The EULA details the circumstances under which you will be provided access to the service.
Argh. It has nothing to do with piracy. However, if they decided that they didn't like the way you smell and decided to take all the servers down, they'd be within their rights. If they'd built an authentication system into the game somehow, and decided to region block all Australian copies of the game, they could do that too.
The company is acting to protect the value of the game. It's going to piss off some customers, but I'd rather see a bunch of people pissed off and the company survive to make an expansion pack then have the company go under because everyone found a way to buy the game for $15 because they didn't see that loophole.
I notice from the website you linked to it hasn't been released in Thailand yet.
EDIT: I note also the latest Franglish message on the forums
"...I will also add that these keys have not been obtained from cheaper, boxed versions of the game as these websites claim."
http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3663
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
MMO passwords/keys work the same way. The game itself is considered worthless, game companies give out free discs/downloads with all the game data on it, and the discs and game data are completely without value unless you have the valid means to access that game.
I went through the sales page and read the EULA for purchasing the game, and it said under 'Rights of Use" that
So, the game itself can be installed on however many computers as the primary user (the guy with the cd-key) wants, and as long as his cd-key is valid, he can play the game on as many computers as he wants.
That tells me that the game itself has no inherent value, and it's the key that allows someone to play the game.
The keys (along with the games) were purchased legally, and all g2play is doing is transferring the rights inherent with purchasing the unused product to the people (which is completely legal) paying $15....or $22 something, which is what I saw.
Now, like I said before, it's Cyanide's game, and if they wanted to, they could ban everyone or shut down the servers at any time, but that would be bad for business, just like offering the game for a quarter of the price in certain parts of the world. If they want to ban everyone with a Chinese key, they are perfectly within thier EULA to do so, but that doesn't mean there won't be a backlash from the people who bought a game/key from there.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that it's not a loophole. Wal-Mart (and any retail store) operates under the exact same business model as g2play, just with physical goods and they take care of shipping the goods to your town. When every business model works this way, it's not a loophole, it's the norm.
EDIT 2: About that forum mod post about the cheap keys being illegally obtained, I'll believe it when it's proven to be true. Right now, it looks like it's a knee-jerk reaction to stop people from paying the cheaper price. The burden of proof lies on Cyanide's shoulders. If g2play was illegally distributing keys, wouldn't it have been prudent to put the name of the company in the post, letting customers know who to avoid? It's not slander if it's true.
On the contrary. "Legal grounds" are precisely where the entire argument [strike]will be[/strike] has already been held, and the "first sale" doctrine was upheld, both in 1908 (IIRC from my previous post) and much more recently. I don't believe the developer has a legal leg to stand on, thanks to the "first sale" doctrine and the relevant SCOTUS decisions. What we might see, if the reseller chooses to press the issue, is a case before the Supreme Court that ends up prohibiting any EULA from interfering with the doctrine the Court has already upheld.
Or, we might see our own rights to resell restricted (caveat: I can't easily imagine even Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts leaning that way; it seems to me they would tend to side with actual owners of the property in question), which would be a very bad thing for everyone concerned. If there are any lawyers on this board, I think it's about time for you to chime in, because I'm only basing my opinion on the cases I've read, and there may be other precedents in place that contradict what I'm asserting here.
Now, to extend the car analogy, let's talk for a minute about what the car's title or the deed to the house doesn't do.
Your car's title or the deed to your home do not express any particular limits on your rights of use, sale, guests/visitors, internal behaviors, etc (excepting covenant clauses, which are usually pretty shady in the first place (No sale to Jews/blacks, for example)). The other exception to this is if you are part of a HOA (which IMO should be made illegal in the first place, but that's a whole other argument- I certainly would never by a home that's subject to an HOA/neighborhood association). Yes, there are exceptions to your absolute right to do what you wish with your home and the property on which it sits, but aside from actual laws restricting illegal uses, I would think we all would have serious issues with a third party telling you you can't paint blue the mailbox you've bought and paid for. At least, I would hope so.
You car's title doesn't prescribe upon which roads you may drive, nor does it proscribe upon which roads you may not drive. It also doesn't restrict resale, multiple passengers, custom body or non-dealer system upgrades/repairs, or in fact any of the rights and freedoms a software EULA attempts to restrict with regards to software.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the "first sale" doctrine- as well as every EULA I've ever bothered to actually read- gives you ownership of the physical media outright. Since the digital media on a pressed retail CD or DVD is inseparable from the physical media on which it resides, the final rights of use must fall to you, the consumer, EULA restrictions notwithstanding.
I have a serious problem with the way EULAs are written in general. I don't believe they're legal contracts as they are written today, and I think we need yet another SCOTUS decision to put this to bed for good. It seems to me this resale of legitimately purchased copies of the media in question would be a good test case.
Regardless of how I feel about this, it will be fought over by lawyers in a courtroom. At this point, the legality of what this company did is what is in question, not whether it was "moral" or "ethical".
I mean imagine if the seller was a physical store. Right now it sounds and feels like Cyanide is standing outside the store and saying, "These people are getting a really good deal, something doesn't sound or feel right. I'm not sure if they have broken the law yet, but I'll throw wild allegations around and do this in the mean time." Then they proceed to punch every customer coming out with a copy of the game in the stomach and take it after they have paid money for it. Instead of going in and talking to/threatening the store owner proper, and just saying, "Well those consumers that got it cheep we'll just have to bite the bullet on those few, they paid their money, and try not to let this happen again stopping the problem at it's source."
Really for all their bluster at this point the only people Cyanide is punishing right now is the consumer. Cyanide got their money because the distributor bought the product from them (abet at a much cheaper price), and this re-seller bought it from the distributor and they are getting their money selling the game to whoever they want at a cheaper price. Sure it happens to undercut other territories to a small degree as they are a small seller, but isn't that just business?
I am all for companies being payed what they are owed, I support game companies that make games I like, and feel good to know that my money is being taken as payment for a good product. But then again there is a side of capitalism that's about jerks and loopholes, as long as you are within the law the biggest jerk that can find the biggest loophole can make the most money. It's always been like this. I liked the potato analogy earlier in the thread. You live in a place with really expensive potatoes, but you travel to a place where they are plentiful, this is the place where potato salesmen buy them cheap and sell them expensively back home. You think, "Holy crap I could make a killing back home if I buy a bunch of potatoes, take them with me, and then undercut the competition." You do so, and then the competition cries foul. I know it's a little different in this case, I guess a more apt one would be if I built a car and sold it, then the guy that I sold it too sold it to someone else at a price I didn't like which was lower than I would have sold it to him. Then I tried to fuck with the guy he sold it to because the lower price devalued my product and made me lose some money.
The law is very much on Cyanide's side here. This has nothing, zero, zilch to do with the first sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine came up because the company which produced the product was suing to prevent the reseller from marking down the price. Cyanide is not doing that. They are ceasing to provide a service which is not implicit in the purchase of the software. The consumer has no rights here whatsoever, they just bought a "key" from g2play. They didn't take a stake in the ownership of anything but a series of numbers and letters.
If anyone has a legal right, it's g2play. They bought the software licenses. Again, however, Cyanide is acting within their legal rights when they cut off access to the online service. Simple. Done. Over. No one has any legal rights to pursue.
Well, they're a French company, and they'd have to pursue g2play in a foreign court that is notorious for weak copyright/intellectual property protection. So... no. There's nothing they would ever get out of that. They're doing the best thing that they can to stop g2play, which is to remove the value of what they're selling.
No-one has yet show the source of these cheap CD-keys. I'll be more likely to believe that G2play is distributing legal keys (and totally support them) once someone shows me where they could be getting them from, the game hasn't been released outside of Europe as a boxed copy and the only Digital download is from the official site.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
7 Entertainment Pte. Ltd.
Suntec City, Tower Two
Singapore 038989
g2playshop@gmail.com
Which has zero web presense, nor any other ways to contact them, or find out who owns the company.
I very much doubt that they are going to be protected by the USA First Sale doctrine.
MWO: Adamski
Well, okay. If I buy one of these keys legitimately, and I install the game via whatever means, use the key and agree to the EULA (I assume it's displayed on installation because it's been years since I've seen one not work that way), what's the problem? I've fulfilled all the requirements of the license.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
The whole point of Cyanide's argument is that they're asserting that this is not the case and those keys were never sold to anybody. The only ones who know for certain are the people with the list of all the valid keys, and I don't even know how they'd even know which ones that G2Play is selling, especially if the "we bought from another distributor" is true.
I'm also curious how people think that Cyanide is going to be killing just those specific CDKeys purchased from whosit. They have the master list of all the valid keys. It's easier to just kill everything not on it, which, given what they're saying, I assume means almost all of the ones that G2Play is selling. They're likely going to want to do that eventually anyway, so it makes more sense for them to say "don't buy from these guys, they're selling illegal keys" than just killing the account a month down the road and saying "too bad, it's not on our master list, sucks for you." Legal action just enforces that and likely earns them some cash in the process.
If you assume Cyanide is lying though, then it all goes out the window.
I am wandering pretty far from areas of law I know specifically about, but it seems like systematic banning of people 'because they feel like it' would rise to the level of fraudulence. Yes, the EULA states they can ban people for whatever they want at any time and they're their servers, but the company is also selling a product that includes the implicit promise of access to those servers.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
There isn't one. All of it is in sketchy land. The publishers intended for you to keep the CD key you got with the original package. I don't think they intended for there to be a fail safe in case you lost it.
I don't think anyone is assuming anything, just waiting for some evidence (either from the developer or somewhere else) before the blacklisting is endorsed as the justifiable legal solution.
I think that if Cyanide had that proof they'd have put it on display immediately, and from that I infer that it doesn't exist.
edit: I guess that's kind of a reach on my part, but I still don't see the reason to assume evidence exists, given that the dev would have every incentive to be showing it to everyone if they had it.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Because until you buy the EULA, you don't have the right to download or install the game. You've effectively stolen a copy of the license.
The way it works, as far as I know, is 1) legitimately purchase something that comes with the license; 2) whatever; 3) enjoy.
Retail release in France, Spain, and Germany.
False. If the product is advertised as having online play, and you are denied that service, then the product was falsely advertised as well as failing the warranty of merchantability test. And don't even bother claiming that the EULA covers their ass because at least here in the States EULAs have never been upheld in court.
Unfortunately the only way to know for sure what the end result could be is for someone with a banned key to sue the fuck out of Cyanide and see what happens.
Lastly, I love how the idiot distributors post on the official forums about 'illegal' acts and 'fraudulently obtained' keys, yet provide no evidence, no reasoning, nor anything to back up their claims. Gee, someone with everything to gain and nothing to lose with such a post, hmmm, yeah, I think I'll remain skeptical of their claims.
Edit: I also find it hilarious that Cyanide, after having been taken to court for trademark infringement and subsequently signing a licensing deal, is now totally gungho about following the laws regarding first sale doctrine, warranty of merchantability, and copyright infringement. lol
Considering that the only way to prove their claim would be to post the list of valid keys dot dot dot
Well at the least they could say if they were key-genned or whatever but they still haven't and that's why there are a number of people who are staying skeptical.
I want to know more PA people on Twitter.
This is the problem i'm having, which leads me to think that it's just knee-jerk backpeddling to try to save their blundering execs who thought it would be profitable to release the game at vastly different pricepoints.
I'm still having flashbacks of Lik-Sang being destroyed by Sony for this exact same circumstance, and I'm bitter.
You didn't buy the product. You bought a key from a sketchy company that was offering it to you as a "spare key." Cyanide never advertised anything to you.
Buy the EULA? What? You don't "buy the EULA," you buy access to the software as dictated by the EULA.
If I have a legitimate key, and I agree to use the software under the terms of the EULA, that's it.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
http://www.g2play.net/store/ o_O
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
You do realise he's talking about 7 Entertainemnt Pte. Ltd. right? A company who's email address is apparently a gmail account.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
They could have been keygenned, a bunch of thugs could have robbed a game store and stolen physical copies, a Cyanide employee could have sold them the keys. There are a crapload of ways the keys could have been obtained, the fact that Cyanide doesn't want to come out say what happened leaves me incredibly skeptical.
Of course I did. The company states clearly that the keys come from boxed copies, but that only the key is sent to the customer. Therefore I bought a boxed copy. Per the advertising on the official website I should have access to online servers provided I meet the minimum system requirements of having internet access. And you can call the sketchy all you want, Cyanide certainly is no angel given their history as well as the way they are handling this on their messageboards.