LOL - all I'm trying to say is that revocation of a digital license is perfectly analogous to repoing physical goods.
Well that and that it's funny to see people say that importing in one instance is perfectly acceptable and that it's crazy batshit insane illegal in another based solely on how much you paid. Importing is either legal or illegal, price has nothing to do with it.
Illegal is still not the correct word. You can import all you want, and then the software company can refuse you access to their authentication servers.
Also, revocation of digital license is not very analogous to repossession of physical goods. They are very different things. They have a contract that lets them do it, for instance.
Darkewolfe on
What is this I don't even.
0
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
LOL - all I'm trying to say is that revocation of a digital license is perfectly analogous to repoing physical goods.
Well that and that it's funny to see people say that importing in one instance is perfectly acceptable and that it's crazy batshit insane illegal in another based solely on how much you paid. Importing is either legal or illegal, price has nothing to do with it.
Again, the problem here is not importing. If Blood Bowl was actually for sale in Asia, or Eastern Europe, for $10 a pop and G2play was selling it at a mark-up to the rest of the world, I'd be much more inclined to find Cyanide/Focus at fault here. It isn't though. It will be at some point in the future, presumably, but right now the only way it could have been obtained at such a low cost by G2play is either through illegal means, or the breaking of a street date by 2 months. In either case, I have zero problem with Cyanide/Focus banning the accounts. If there was anything illegal involved, customers would probably be SOL unless G2play recognizes the value of refunding all of them to prevent loss of future business, and does so while eating whatever costs they incurred to obtain the serials. If it was an issue of a broken street date, Cyanide/Focus is still totally within their rights to ban the accounts in question. The customers should then pursue refunds with G2play, who should pursue refunds from the distributor/supplier that broke street. Whoever actually broke their contract by selling early should be the ones to eat this, not Cyanide/Focus.
edit: [strike]I'm actually in a third world country atm, so maybe I'll go check what prices are here. If I'm free, I guess. Details (possibly) tomorrow?[/strike]
Actually, illegal is a great word to be used here. Since the publisher has not offered a refund of the purchase price for the revoked licenses, they have both taken money for the sale of the license and repossesed the license. Since g2play refunded my money, no skin off my back. But who is refunding their money? If their supplier is refunding their money, is the publisher refunding to them? Focus Home Interactive gets to have their cake and eat it too?
The contract you're referring to, between the publisher and the end user, is the EULA. The EULA for this game is not freely available on its site which means that you're forced to read it after the purchase. Since the publisher is not offering an avenue for a refund if you disagree with the EULA, but does not make it available until after your purchase, the chances are very good that the contract is completely unenforceable.
I'm actually in a third world country atm, so maybe I'll go check what prices are here. If I'm free, I guess. Details (possibly) tomorrow?
That's a pageholder. They don't actually have the product available for sale at that price yet.
Edit:
Houndx, you are wrong. You do not understand the meaning of the word illegal, or contract.
Darkewolfe on
What is this I don't even.
0
ZephosClimbin in yo ski lifts, snatchin your people up.MichiganRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
has there been any more actual updates? or is this still just a bunch of people speculating based on what they think they know about EULA's and whatnot?
Darkewolfe, enlighten me please. Explain the situation to me in which it is legal to a)accept money for a license, b)revoke the license, and c)keep the money. Also, explain to me a situation in which a contract is binding when you don't allow the purchasing party to a)know it exists prior to purchase, b)read it until after purchase, and c)provide no avenue for relief if the consumer disagrees with the contract.
Other publishers have wised up to this. They offer their EULAs on their sites so that they can be read prior to purchase and they also offer full refunds to customers who purchase their software and disagree with the license prior to installation.
Houndx on
0
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Actually, illegal is a great word to be used here. Since the publisher has not offered a refund of the purchase price for the revoked licenses, they have both taken money for the sale of the license and repossesed the license. Since g2play refunded my money, no skin off my back. But who is refunding their money? If their supplier is refunding their money, is the publisher refunding to them? Focus Home Interactive gets to have their cake and eat it too?
The contract you're referring to, between the publisher and the end user, is the EULA. The EULA for this game is not freely available on its site which means that you're forced to read it after the purchase. Since the publisher is not offering an avenue for a refund if you disagree with the EULA, but does not make it available until after your purchase, the chances are very good that the contract is completely unenforceable.
If a distributor breached their contract by selling the game far earlier than allowed, they should eat the cost on this. If you want to call that Cyanide/Focus having their cake and eating it too, I disagree, but so be it.
EULA's ARE (currently) legally enforceable. You are considered to be the owner of the software you physically possess (interestingly, you don't actually get any such thing from G2game). Software companies originally said, "we own the software, we're just loaning it to you." That doesn't work anymore. Now it's, "You own the software when you buy it, but it won't function the way you want it to until you agree to the EULA which transfers the rights we want back to us." That IS legally enforceable, and has been upheld in US courts.
Publishers offer EULAs on their sites because they know that's good business sense. It's still a completely enforceable contract without having it available on the site, though. Additionally, you will find on software packaging (the bit you get to see before you buy it) things like "Availability of services subject to change. Use of online services is governed by terms and conditions of a separate agreement."
And again, absolutely none of this is in any way relevant to this specific controversy. G2game did not sell you the game. They don't have good legalese on their website because they are apparently run out of a basement in Poland with a fake address on another continent, and essentially are not going to be found if anyone ever does try to sue them. Either way, Cyanide is not in any way legally responsible for whatever you think you bought with your 15 dollars from some guy on the intarwebs.
Edit:
Also, if anyone wants to buy Blood Bowl from me, I'm selling it for 5 dollars. Paypal the money to me. This is completely legit, I promise you will get a copy of the game. If anything ever goes wrong, please blame the game publisher and not me. I have 1 million copies.
G2Play is a site I've used and even recomended to friends in the past. Their business model is to buy a crapload of games wherever it's cheapest in the world and resell the keys online. I've never had one of these keys blacklisted, nor has anyone I know who has used their service. In fact they frequently run out of stock on their games, including Blood Bowl which sold out the first day they had it up. That is enough for me to believe they are not just generating keys and selling them. How would you run out of stock? Plus generated keys are often blacklisted in short order.
Obviously publishers don't like this business model. From a financial standpoint, it IS the same as importing to them, and we already know how they feel about that. They do have a RIGHT however to terminate those keys, as defined in their EULA. No company has decided to do that in the past, because it could be seen as bad business. Is it though?
Imagine a new game came out for $50. You wanted to play it, but $50 was simply too much for you. You purchase the game through an online exporter for $20. (I know some of you wouldn't do that, but just pretend you did). After a week or so, the publisher blocks all imported games from their servers.
As the person in this scenario, are you inclined to repurchase the game from the publisher for $50 so you can continue playing? (Assuming you liked it, keep in mind you spent $20 already and $50 is a lot to you)
If the publisher came out with another game for $50, would you be more inclined to buy it, or would you simply elect not to play it? (remember $50 is a lot to you).
After the game is blocked from the server, the importer refunds your $20 with no questions asked. Who do you harbor more negative feelings toward, the publisher, or the importer? (for not pointing out this possibility when they sold you the game)
There are no right answers to these questions, I was just wondering how others felt about it.
That IS legally enforceable, and has been upheld in US courts.
Link or shens
No, U.
Fine. We'll visit the infinite font of blarglgarbl that is wikipedia, because I don't feel like dragging out the media law books. This is, in fact, a very relevant case example.
If the box says "license enclosed" then the 5000 page license inside the box is still legally enforceable under contract law. Also, it is acceptable for a company to charge commercial users more than individual users for software, and get pissed about the commercial users pretending to be a different type of user.
But seriously, it's a common business practice. I think in this instance the burden would be on you for proof, not me.
Either way, Cyanide is not in any way legally responsible for whatever you think you bought with your 15 dollars from some guy on the intarwebs.
I'd tell you why this statement is wrong but you, obviously, do not understand what publisher means.
You're right. I have been lazy about using the name Cyanide because I haven't bothered to type out the name of the publisher. My overall point, however, still stands. Your point on the technicality, touche.
Buying stuff from G2Play, which is gutting them and selling the serials, is kind of like buying shit from a second-hand shop. Normally a publisher could be held strictly liable for "damages" resulting from defective software, but if it has been substantially tampered with in any way (as here), that liability can end. That's more of a tort claim, though. Caveat emptor would be more applicable from a contract perspective, but since G2Play is a merchant and this is a sale of goods ...well, you look to UCC Article 2. Suffice it to say, G2Play would be the offending party under Article 2, not the publisher.
Also, explain to me a situation in which a contract is binding when you don't allow the purchasing party to a)know it exists prior to purchase, b)read it until after purchase, and c)provide no avenue for relief if the consumer disagrees with the contract.
Well, to answer a) and b), this happens all the time in certain Article 2 governed merchant-merchant purchases and agreements. It is no big deal at all. In that situation, a merchant is deemed to accept such a contract by neglecting to object to its terms. I'm sure it could be argued that G2Play accepted all the EULAs and then sold nothing more than a number to consumers, the value of which only G2Play would be liable for under an implied warranty of merchantability.
As for c) - that is pretty much a fictional situation you have described. If you install some software, read the EULA and decide you don't like it, don't click accept. Call the company and ask for a full refund. If they don't give it to you, take it to court - you never accepted the contract. The consumer ALWAYS has an avenue for relief, even if the publisher, distributor or other merchant in the stream of commerce doesn't provide one. It is called the court system. Ultimately if you feel you have been ripped off, you take it to court.
In my professional opinion, if you wanted to sue someone successfully, it would be in your best interest to pick G2Play. That is the merchant party to the consumer contracts debated here, and that is who the purchaser of a serial number would go after for relief.
If the box says "license enclosed" then the 5000 page license inside the box is still legally enforceable under contract law. Also, it is acceptable for a company to charge commercial users more than individual users for software, and get pissed about the commercial users pretending to be a different type of user.
But seriously, it's a common business practice. I think in this instance the burden would be on you for proof, not me.
I don't even need to read the link to address these points and offer my proof that, based on your statement, the EULA would not be an enforceable contract.
Let's agree on one point to start with. This game is not available in a box for the US right now.
Given that it is onlyavailable as a download then the game's website is the best source of information available prior to purchase:
Continuing further down this chain of links only leads you to an agreement between you and Nexway (the download service) with no mention of "License enclosed" or the EULA prior to your pruchase. Also, no mention of who is, or is not, authorized to resell licenses.
When you go to buy the game, you have to check a box which says you agree to those terms and conditions. You just have to click through to the part before you give them money.
I'm sure it could be argued that G2Play accepted all the EULAs
The only coherent arguement against this I've read in the whole thread.
If fact, expounding on this you could further say they had reasonable access to the license when they opened the packing and then broke it. That's a line of reasoning I can follow and I'll now agree completely that g2play is in the wrong, etc. The only way around that would be for them to ship physical goods.
However, the other people arguing against this are still wrong. You don't get to be right just by saying "Nuh uh, it MUST be illegal because it was so cheap."
When you go to buy the game, you have to check a box which says you agree to those terms and conditions. You just have to click through to the part before you give them money.
Er, did you at least SKIM the terms and conditions. That is an agreement between you and Nexway that I DID mention. Speaking of willfully ignorant....
Please, dear god in heaven, stop using the word illegal. I am not arguing it was illegal. I am arguing that the software vendors are within their contractual rights.
Darkewolfe on
What is this I don't even.
0
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
However, the other people arguing against this are still wrong. You don't get to be right just by saying "Nuh uh, it MUST be illegal because it was so cheap."
The only person saying "Nuh uh, it MUST be x/y/z" in this thread right now is you.
When you go to buy the game, you have to check a box which says you agree to those terms and conditions. You just have to click through to the part before you give them money.
Er, did you at least SKIM the terms and conditions. That is an agreement between you and Nexway that I DID mention. Speaking of willfully ignorant....
I in fact read the entire terms and conditions, including the part that says you agree to all the copyright rules governing the software between you and the IP owner.
When you go to buy the game, you have to check a box which says you agree to those terms and conditions. You just have to click through to the part before you give them money.
Er, did you at least SKIM the terms and conditions. That is an agreement between you and Nexway that I DID mention. Speaking of willfully ignorant....
I in fact read the entire terms and conditions, including the part that says you agree to all the copyright rules governing the software between you and the IP owner.
o_O - So what part of agreeing to not break copyright rules has anything to do with an EULA that will be only be presented after the purchase is complete while you are installing the product you purchased?
I'll answer this one for you, actually, just cause it's such an easy question.
Nothing. The answer is nothing.
Copyright rules =/= contract rules.
The Eula is a contract, not a copyright rule.
I'm sure it could be argued that G2Play accepted all the EULAs
The only coherent arguement against this I've read in the whole thread.
If fact, expounding on this you could further say they had reasonable access to the license when they opened the packing and then broke it. That's a line of reasoning I can follow and I'll now agree completely that g2play is in the wrong, etc. The only way around that would be for them to ship physical goods.
Yeah, if there's any situation in which EULAs legally apply, it would be this one. They're not some hapless consumer, they're a business that is attempting to make a profit off of bulk purchases. Expecting them to return the first package after opening it would have been unreasonable. Expecting them to not open the large amount of other packages that they had obtained? Not so much.
On what basis are you determining that G2Play accepted the EULA? The only circumstance that could be true is if they purchased the digital copy and were presented with the EULA before being allowed to purchase the game. Buying a boxed copy of a game does not indicate acceptance of the enclosed EULA, it is not until you actually attempt to install the software and are prompted with acceptance of the license does that situation come up. If G2Play is acquiring boxed software, opening it, recording the key, and then in turn selling that key, they most definitely have not accepted the EULA and are not bound by it.
If you attempt to argue otherwise, think about how preposterous your argument is. I could write into the EULA that you must sell me your car for $1 if you use the software more than once, or that you have to send me a picture of your wife and kids each time you connect to the internet, or that the license is only good every Thursday. So just by buying a box of software you have agreed to all of this.
Actually, you're completely right. The manual states that the EULA must be accepted during installation. G2play never installed the software that was resold, so they never reached the EULA.
In essence, I agree that all of this talk of the EULA is BS. EULA's in general are BS. They give the publisher the right to revoke your license for any reason and try to void any warranty of merchantability, which is why they stand a very good chance of being shot down if they're ever really put to the test.
I still lay the blame on the publisher and I feel that this is basically stealing from the end user. The fact that g2play stepped up with a refund doesn't change that.
On what basis are you determining that G2Play accepted the EULA? The only circumstance that could be true is if they purchased the digital copy and were presented with the EULA before being allowed to purchase the game. Buying a boxed copy of a game does not indicate acceptance of the enclosed EULA, it is not until you actually attempt to install the software and are prompted with acceptance of the license does that situation come up. If G2Play is acquiring boxed software, opening it, recording the key, and then in turn selling that key, they most definitely have not accepted the EULA and are not bound by it.
If you attempt to argue otherwise, think about how preposterous your argument is. I could write into the EULA that you must sell me your car for $1 if you use the software more than once, or that you have to send me a picture of your wife and kids each time you connect to the internet, or that the license is only good every Thursday. So just by buying a box of software you have agreed to all of this.
To drag yesterday's argument up again, it seems to me that people who buy keys aren't entering any kind of EULA at all. Instead, the suggested procedure is that they imagine that they've entered into the terms of the contract, torrent the software and install it, telling themselves that buying the key meets the requirements of the agreement.
How is g2play transferring the rights granted by the EULA to the people who buy the keys?
Orogogus on
0
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
That IS legally enforceable, and has been upheld in US courts.
Link or shens
No, U.
Fine. We'll visit the infinite font of blarglgarbl that is wikipedia, because I don't feel like dragging out the media law books. This is, in fact, a very relevant case example.
If the box says "license enclosed" then the 5000 page license inside the box is still legally enforceable under contract law. Also, it is acceptable for a company to charge commercial users more than individual users for software, and get pissed about the commercial users pretending to be a different type of user.
But seriously, it's a common business practice. I think in this instance the burden would be on you for proof, not me.
Either way, Cyanide is not in any way legally responsible for whatever you think you bought with your 15 dollars from some guy on the intarwebs.
I'd tell you why this statement is wrong but you, obviously, do not understand what publisher means.
You're right. I have been lazy about using the name Cyanide because I haven't bothered to type out the name of the publisher. My overall point, however, still stands. Your point on the technicality, touche.
[The] court concludes that the transfer of AutoCAD packages from Autodesk to CTA was a sale.
ahahaha owned
edit: yeah it really is awesome -
As the court has previously discussed, § 117 of the Copyright Act permits owners of copies of computer software to copy the software if doing so is essential to the use of the software. See 17 U.S.C. § 117(a); Part III.A.3, supra. Like § 109 and the first sale doctrine it codifies, the right to copy that § 117 confers is contingent upon the user being an “owner of a copy.” 17 U.S.C. § 117(a). The court has already concluded that Mr. Vernor (and by extension, those to whom he resells) is the owner of the copies of AutoCAD software contained in the packages he bought. The persons to whom he resells, therefore, may copy AutoCAD software in accordance with § 117.
ronya on
0
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
[The] court concludes that the transfer of AutoCAD packages from Autodesk to CTA was a sale.
ahahaha owned
edit: yeah it really is awesome -
As the court has previously discussed, § 117 of the Copyright Act permits owners of copies of computer software to copy the software if doing so is essential to the use of the software. See 17 U.S.C. § 117(a); Part III.A.3, supra. Like § 109 and the first sale doctrine it codifies, the right to copy that § 117 confers is contingent upon the user being an “owner of a copy.†17 U.S.C. § 117(a). The court has already concluded that Mr. Vernor (and by extension, those to whom he resells) is the owner of the copies of AutoCAD software contained in the packages he bought. The persons to whom he resells, therefore, may copy AutoCAD software in accordance with § 117.
It's a district court case and i'm sure it'll be appealed, but it's the right read on the law of the issue.
Fair do's, however, for me, this doesn't explain the discrepancy between g2play claiming the serials came from boxed copies and Cyanide/Focus saying they can from Download copies, nor does it explain why they operate out of a fake Singapore address.
I'm getting intense deja-vu, have I posted this before?
Not to call you a retard... but you trust G2play more now that they have been publicly caught out selling illegitimate keys, and trust the Publisher less because they took action against someone that was selling these illegitimate keys.
Its not like Focus had many alternatives, if they had any at all. G2play is a shell company run by a shell company, I dont know what other means Focus had to contact them to try and resolve this.
They didn't take action against someone selling illegitimate keys, they took action against people who were effectively paying customers.
G2play has offered full discounts. They have also stopped using the supplier which was supplying illegitimate keys. Sure, they may still be operating in a legal grey area, but they know how to look after their customers a hell of a lot better than Focus.
Fair do's, however, for me, this doesn't explain the discrepancy between g2play claiming the serials came from boxed copies and Cyanide/Focus saying they can from Download copies, nor does it explain why they operate out of a fake Singapore address.
I'm getting intense deja-vu, have I posted this before?
Could be that they had arrangements with their supplier to send them the keys which they then send on? I'm not sure if the postage saving on that would be more or less than the cost of opening and transcribing them all though.
They didn't take action against someone selling illegitimate keys, they took action against people who were effectively paying customers.
G2play has offered full discounts. They have also stopped using the supplier which was supplying illegitimate keys. Sure, they may still be operating in a legal grey area, but they know how to look after their customers a hell of a lot better than Focus.
...how was Focus supposed to react, given this situation?
They didn't take action against someone selling illegitimate keys, they took action against people who were effectively paying customers.
G2play has offered full discounts. They have also stopped using the supplier which was supplying illegitimate keys. Sure, they may still be operating in a legal grey area, but they know how to look after their customers a hell of a lot better than Focus.
...how was Focus supposed to react, given this situation?
A very good question, actually. They certainly couldn't have let the keys remain active, as they would have been lynched by all the people who had paid full price.
As far as I can see, g2play has admitted that *some* keys were dodgy (which is blamed on the supplier) and focus has asserted that *all* the dodgy keys have been banned, and that the matter is basically closed (and is not to be discussed further).
I note that there is no mention in Jessica's comments of onlinekeystore, only g2play. Also there appears to be a number of people with g2play codes which have remained active (and I have not heard of an oks key being turned off), which supports g2plays assertion as to it only being a subset of the keys.
my take?
There were some illicitly obtained keys which have were sold via g2play which have been banned. Focus / cyanide is pretending that this is all the keys availiable via g2play / oks, to avoid trouble with the people who have bought direct, but have in actual fact been burnt by the fact that they either cannot distinguish between the other codes from these sites and ones obtained from retail / their direct download site or they have decided that they cannot legally stop g2play/oks from doing their (seemingly immoral but legal) actions. The whole thing will now probably die and be swept under a rug.
Posts
Well that and that it's funny to see people say that importing in one instance is perfectly acceptable and that it's crazy batshit insane illegal in another based solely on how much you paid. Importing is either legal or illegal, price has nothing to do with it.
Also, revocation of digital license is not very analogous to repossession of physical goods. They are very different things. They have a contract that lets them do it, for instance.
Again, the problem here is not importing. If Blood Bowl was actually for sale in Asia, or Eastern Europe, for $10 a pop and G2play was selling it at a mark-up to the rest of the world, I'd be much more inclined to find Cyanide/Focus at fault here. It isn't though. It will be at some point in the future, presumably, but right now the only way it could have been obtained at such a low cost by G2play is either through illegal means, or the breaking of a street date by 2 months. In either case, I have zero problem with Cyanide/Focus banning the accounts. If there was anything illegal involved, customers would probably be SOL unless G2play recognizes the value of refunding all of them to prevent loss of future business, and does so while eating whatever costs they incurred to obtain the serials. If it was an issue of a broken street date, Cyanide/Focus is still totally within their rights to ban the accounts in question. The customers should then pursue refunds with G2play, who should pursue refunds from the distributor/supplier that broke street. Whoever actually broke their contract by selling early should be the ones to eat this, not Cyanide/Focus.
edit: [strike]I'm actually in a third world country atm, so maybe I'll go check what prices are here. If I'm free, I guess. Details (possibly) tomorrow?[/strike]
The contract you're referring to, between the publisher and the end user, is the EULA. The EULA for this game is not freely available on its site which means that you're forced to read it after the purchase. Since the publisher is not offering an avenue for a refund if you disagree with the EULA, but does not make it available until after your purchase, the chances are very good that the contract is completely unenforceable.
That's a pageholder. They don't actually have the product available for sale at that price yet.
Edit:
Houndx, you are wrong. You do not understand the meaning of the word illegal, or contract.
Other publishers have wised up to this. They offer their EULAs on their sites so that they can be read prior to purchase and they also offer full refunds to customers who purchase their software and disagree with the license prior to installation.
Placeholder. Not actually for sale yet. Repeated ad nauseum.
If a distributor breached their contract by selling the game far earlier than allowed, they should eat the cost on this. If you want to call that Cyanide/Focus having their cake and eating it too, I disagree, but so be it.
Publishers offer EULAs on their sites because they know that's good business sense. It's still a completely enforceable contract without having it available on the site, though. Additionally, you will find on software packaging (the bit you get to see before you buy it) things like "Availability of services subject to change. Use of online services is governed by terms and conditions of a separate agreement."
And again, absolutely none of this is in any way relevant to this specific controversy. G2game did not sell you the game. They don't have good legalese on their website because they are apparently run out of a basement in Poland with a fake address on another continent, and essentially are not going to be found if anyone ever does try to sue them. Either way, Cyanide is not in any way legally responsible for whatever you think you bought with your 15 dollars from some guy on the intarwebs.
Edit:
Also, if anyone wants to buy Blood Bowl from me, I'm selling it for 5 dollars. Paypal the money to me. This is completely legit, I promise you will get a copy of the game. If anything ever goes wrong, please blame the game publisher and not me. I have 1 million copies.
Link or shens
I'd tell you why this statement is wrong but you, obviously, do not understand what publisher means.
Obviously publishers don't like this business model. From a financial standpoint, it IS the same as importing to them, and we already know how they feel about that. They do have a RIGHT however to terminate those keys, as defined in their EULA. No company has decided to do that in the past, because it could be seen as bad business. Is it though?
Imagine a new game came out for $50. You wanted to play it, but $50 was simply too much for you. You purchase the game through an online exporter for $20. (I know some of you wouldn't do that, but just pretend you did). After a week or so, the publisher blocks all imported games from their servers.
As the person in this scenario, are you inclined to repurchase the game from the publisher for $50 so you can continue playing? (Assuming you liked it, keep in mind you spent $20 already and $50 is a lot to you)
If the publisher came out with another game for $50, would you be more inclined to buy it, or would you simply elect not to play it? (remember $50 is a lot to you).
After the game is blocked from the server, the importer refunds your $20 with no questions asked. Who do you harbor more negative feelings toward, the publisher, or the importer? (for not pointing out this possibility when they sold you the game)
There are no right answers to these questions, I was just wondering how others felt about it.
No, U.
Fine. We'll visit the infinite font of blarglgarbl that is wikipedia, because I don't feel like dragging out the media law books. This is, in fact, a very relevant case example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
tl;dr:
If the box says "license enclosed" then the 5000 page license inside the box is still legally enforceable under contract law. Also, it is acceptable for a company to charge commercial users more than individual users for software, and get pissed about the commercial users pretending to be a different type of user.
But seriously, it's a common business practice. I think in this instance the burden would be on you for proof, not me.
You're right. I have been lazy about using the name Cyanide because I haven't bothered to type out the name of the publisher. My overall point, however, still stands. Your point on the technicality, touche.
Buying stuff from G2Play, which is gutting them and selling the serials, is kind of like buying shit from a second-hand shop. Normally a publisher could be held strictly liable for "damages" resulting from defective software, but if it has been substantially tampered with in any way (as here), that liability can end. That's more of a tort claim, though. Caveat emptor would be more applicable from a contract perspective, but since G2Play is a merchant and this is a sale of goods ...well, you look to UCC Article 2. Suffice it to say, G2Play would be the offending party under Article 2, not the publisher.
Well, to answer a) and b), this happens all the time in certain Article 2 governed merchant-merchant purchases and agreements. It is no big deal at all. In that situation, a merchant is deemed to accept such a contract by neglecting to object to its terms. I'm sure it could be argued that G2Play accepted all the EULAs and then sold nothing more than a number to consumers, the value of which only G2Play would be liable for under an implied warranty of merchantability.
As for c) - that is pretty much a fictional situation you have described. If you install some software, read the EULA and decide you don't like it, don't click accept. Call the company and ask for a full refund. If they don't give it to you, take it to court - you never accepted the contract. The consumer ALWAYS has an avenue for relief, even if the publisher, distributor or other merchant in the stream of commerce doesn't provide one. It is called the court system. Ultimately if you feel you have been ripped off, you take it to court.
In my professional opinion, if you wanted to sue someone successfully, it would be in your best interest to pick G2Play. That is the merchant party to the consumer contracts debated here, and that is who the purchaser of a serial number would go after for relief.
I don't even need to read the link to address these points and offer my proof that, based on your statement, the EULA would not be an enforceable contract.
Let's agree on one point to start with. This game is not available in a box for the US right now.
Given that it is onlyavailable as a download then the game's website is the best source of information available prior to purchase:
The site
The FAQ
The "Buy Now!" page with system requirements, etc
Continuing further down this chain of links only leads you to an agreement between you and Nexway (the download service) with no mention of "License enclosed" or the EULA prior to your pruchase. Also, no mention of who is, or is not, authorized to resell licenses.
Also:
http://bloodbowl.nexway.com/cgv.html
When you go to buy the game, you have to check a box which says you agree to those terms and conditions. You just have to click through to the part before you give them money.
The only coherent arguement against this I've read in the whole thread.
If fact, expounding on this you could further say they had reasonable access to the license when they opened the packing and then broke it. That's a line of reasoning I can follow and I'll now agree completely that g2play is in the wrong, etc. The only way around that would be for them to ship physical goods.
However, the other people arguing against this are still wrong. You don't get to be right just by saying "Nuh uh, it MUST be illegal because it was so cheap."
Er, did you at least SKIM the terms and conditions. That is an agreement between you and Nexway that I DID mention. Speaking of willfully ignorant....
The only person saying "Nuh uh, it MUST be x/y/z" in this thread right now is you.
I in fact read the entire terms and conditions, including the part that says you agree to all the copyright rules governing the software between you and the IP owner.
I'll answer this one for you, actually, just cause it's such an easy question.
The Eula is a contract, not a copyright rule.
Backlog Wars - Sonic Generations | Steam!
Viewing the forums through rose colored glasses... or Suriko's Ye Old Style and The PostCount/TimeStamp Restoral Device
Yeah, if there's any situation in which EULAs legally apply, it would be this one. They're not some hapless consumer, they're a business that is attempting to make a profit off of bulk purchases. Expecting them to return the first package after opening it would have been unreasonable. Expecting them to not open the large amount of other packages that they had obtained? Not so much.
If you attempt to argue otherwise, think about how preposterous your argument is. I could write into the EULA that you must sell me your car for $1 if you use the software more than once, or that you have to send me a picture of your wife and kids each time you connect to the internet, or that the license is only good every Thursday. So just by buying a box of software you have agreed to all of this.
In essence, I agree that all of this talk of the EULA is BS. EULA's in general are BS. They give the publisher the right to revoke your license for any reason and try to void any warranty of merchantability, which is why they stand a very good chance of being shot down if they're ever really put to the test.
I still lay the blame on the publisher and I feel that this is basically stealing from the end user. The fact that g2play stepped up with a refund doesn't change that.
To drag yesterday's argument up again, it seems to me that people who buy keys aren't entering any kind of EULA at all. Instead, the suggested procedure is that they imagine that they've entered into the terms of the contract, torrent the software and install it, telling themselves that buying the key meets the requirements of the agreement.
How is g2play transferring the rights granted by the EULA to the people who buy the keys?
Jesus. ProCD is old, and wasn't even about first sale. If you're going to cite case law, do legal research - about an ebay seller's right to resell his copy of autocad.
http://www.lawupdates.com/pdf/postings/copyright/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc..pdf
ahahaha owned
edit: yeah it really is awesome -
It's a district court case and i'm sure it'll be appealed, but it's the right read on the law of the issue.
Fair do's, however, for me, this doesn't explain the discrepancy between g2play claiming the serials came from boxed copies and Cyanide/Focus saying they can from Download copies, nor does it explain why they operate out of a fake Singapore address.
I'm getting intense deja-vu, have I posted this before?
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.
Not to call you a retard... but you trust G2play more now that they have been publicly caught out selling illegitimate keys, and trust the Publisher less because they took action against someone that was selling these illegitimate keys.
Its not like Focus had many alternatives, if they had any at all. G2play is a shell company run by a shell company, I dont know what other means Focus had to contact them to try and resolve this.
MWO: Adamski
G2play has offered full discounts. They have also stopped using the supplier which was supplying illegitimate keys. Sure, they may still be operating in a legal grey area, but they know how to look after their customers a hell of a lot better than Focus.
Could be that they had arrangements with their supplier to send them the keys which they then send on? I'm not sure if the postage saving on that would be more or less than the cost of opening and transcribing them all though.
A very good question, actually. They certainly couldn't have let the keys remain active, as they would have been lynched by all the people who had paid full price.
As far as I can see, g2play has admitted that *some* keys were dodgy (which is blamed on the supplier) and focus has asserted that *all* the dodgy keys have been banned, and that the matter is basically closed (and is not to be discussed further).
I note that there is no mention in Jessica's comments of onlinekeystore, only g2play. Also there appears to be a number of people with g2play codes which have remained active (and I have not heard of an oks key being turned off), which supports g2plays assertion as to it only being a subset of the keys.
my take?
There were some illicitly obtained keys which have were sold via g2play which have been banned. Focus / cyanide is pretending that this is all the keys availiable via g2play / oks, to avoid trouble with the people who have bought direct, but have in actual fact been burnt by the fact that they either cannot distinguish between the other codes from these sites and ones obtained from retail / their direct download site or they have decided that they cannot legally stop g2play/oks from doing their (seemingly immoral but legal) actions. The whole thing will now probably die and be swept under a rug.