It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY (80 posts)(80 posts)
(80 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
cogadh: None of those were challenges of the validity of the EULA itself, they were suits brought by the licensor against the licensee, mostly for copyright infringement violations, not EULA violations.
avatar
cjrgreen: No, they upheld the ability of the licensor to enforce terms of the EULA such as (in Autodesk) prohibitions against resale.

If they had held the EULAs invalid, they would not have upheld terms of the EULA.
Re-read your own articles and then listen to what I said. None of the cases you referenced addressed the validity of the EULA; they may have referenced portions of it, but only in so far as it relates to copyright infringement, which was the key factor of all those cases. Besides that, as I said, those were cases of the licensor suing the licensee, not the other way around, which is what would happen if EA were to try to enforce the unenforceable clauses in the EULA they tacked on to their games here.
Posted June 02, 2011
avatar
cjrgreen: No, they upheld the ability of the licensor to enforce terms of the EULA such as (in Autodesk) prohibitions against resale.

If they had held the EULAs invalid, they would not have upheld terms of the EULA.
avatar
cogadh: Re-read your own articles and then listen to what I said. None of the cases you referenced addressed the validity of the EULA; they may have referenced portions of it, but only in so far as it relates to copyright infringement, which was the key factor of all those cases. Besides that, as I said, those were cases of the licensor suing the licensee, not the other way around, which is what would happen if EA were to try to enforce the unenforceable clauses in the EULA they tacked on to their games here.
No, you missed the central point of the Autodesk case, which was Autodesk's claim that their EULA prohibited exactly what Vernor attempted to do, which was resell the software that they had agreed not to resell.

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions...."

As for whether a result for the licensor would obtain if and when EA were sued, nothing about the fact that the licensee instead of the licensor were the plaintiff would change a thing. Civil cases are settled by a preponderance of the evidence, not "reasonable doubt".

A EULA is a contract. You can't just call a contract void because its terms are blatantly one-sided. It has to be found void because there was no genuine assent, or because the bargain was only an illusion, or because it is contrary to public purpose.
Post edited June 02, 2011 by cjrgreen
Posted June 02, 2011
Every GOG game has a license agreement last time I checked. You have to accept it to install every time. EA wanted to use their own, big whoop.

PARANOIA YO!
Posted June 02, 2011
Not really sure why people are getting bent out of shape over this. On one hand, if you get in a lawsuit or some other kind of pissing match with a company the size of EA you're basically fucked regardless of what the EULA says, or if there's an EULA at all. And on the other hand, does anyone actually feel obligated to abide by whatever asinine minutiae is contained in the EULA?
Posted June 02, 2011
Just ctrl+F for 'centipad'. If it's not there then you're golden.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)ACCEPTANCE OF END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO PLAY (80 posts)(80 posts)
(80 posts)