google Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Thankful? For what, having to pay more? Or for having to buy something that I would have no other use for just to pay less for the game? Oh yeah, I'm thankful, cheers for that! You can always not buy it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Walds Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Thankful? For what, having to pay more? Or for having to buy something that I would have no other use for just to pay less for the game? Oh yeah, I'm thankful, cheers for that! You would have no other use for a DVD drive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurakUeda Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 So, on that basis, are you allowed to take the pieece of software back to the shop you purchased it from if you do not click on the agree button, and therefore do not agree the contract with the publisher?No, you are not allowed to do that.Because publisher keeps their promises, and provide you with a working software. You got the item you've paid for. And licence agreement will not prevent you from using the software's any feature. Also allowed number of users, simple explanation of the software, requirement etc. are available in the box, so you can check before buy. So you don't have any case there (Oh! by the way IANAL ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris21 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 If you and your brother are both playing the game at the same time then you should have one copy each. That is absoluely ridiculous, sorry but it is. I've pre-ordered the game and shall install it on my laptop but surely my brother (who is 14) can install on the main/family computer aswell? I mean he's 14 for God sake, he can't go and pay £30+ to buy the game so I buy it for us being the older brother. Complete farce if this is true. Just tryna make more money out of us. Before anyone says I'm aware I have 5 licenses or whatever but if the guy I've quoted says that we should have one copy each then I'm gonna have to shell out another £30. Apologies if this sounds like a rant because its not really. I've been buying the game since the early CM days and I love everything SI do with the game but I think what I've posted above is a fair opinion about all this and after last years fiasco with the bugs I'm starting to become a bit annoyed with it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0x0r Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 If you and your brother are both playing the game at the same time then you should have one copy each. Unless they play hotseat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egon Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Note that Ter said "should", not "will have to". I can't imagine that if you install it on two different machines and play simultaneously, that the doors will burst open and the police will start making arrests. Essentially, you shouldn't do it, but it'll be hard to stop you. EMI will tell me not to copy my Sandie Shaw album for a friend. But if I do, who's going to know. But I wouldn't expect EMI to tell me to go ahead, it'll all be OK, just as SI staff are hardly going to encourage you to breach the licence agreement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly_flyer10 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 You don't enter into the contract before you click 'agree'. I'm afraid you need to brush up on your contract law. The transaction prior is between you and the shop you purchase from, the EULA is a contract between you and the publishers (Sega) and SI. Take your own advice, you have absolutely no clue to what you are on about, you are embarrassing yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly_flyer10 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 So, on that basis, are you allowed to take the pieece of software back to the shop you purchased it from if you do not click on the agree button, and therefore do not agree the contract with the publisher? No, they wont take back opened software which is why EULAs that cannot be read before you buy are totally invalid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Take your own advice, you have absolutely no clue to what you are on about, you are embarrassing yourself. Sorry guys, final on the matter, I just want to clear it up. M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., et al. Mortenson tried to sue Timberline because an error in their software caused Mortenson to miscalculate some work by some millions of dollars. Timberline had included in the EULA a protection that they couldn't be held responsible for damages incurred with use of the program. Court ruled that the EULA was indeed part of the legal contract between Mortenson and Timberline despite Mortenson not seeing it until after the transaction had been made and thus timberline were not in the wrong. Court uphold the EULA as contract. ALSO: this referred to a 'shrinkwrap' EULA, like the one you get in games, that you can't agree to until you open it and can't take it back. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, courts rule that the EULA is enforcable once again. Most importantly: Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway: Court rules that not only is EULA enforcable but that it can be enforced within the reaches of the DMCA. Chris, I think so long as it stays on that comp you're ok, not that I can speak for SI so maybe Ter will correct but I'd imagine if it's a situation like that where in the past you would only have had one copy it doesn't change for this. It's a moral question really - if it's stealing it's stealing, if you and your bro were playing it on 4 different computers it'd be a bit much but on the same comp, same install... it's no different to how you'd do it with the Securom protection of 08 is it? :/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly_flyer10 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Most importantly: Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway: Court rules that not only is EULA enforcable but that it can be enforced within the reaches of the DMCA.[/size] Great, since US law has zero effect on anyone outside the US, this post has zero effect on 99% of FM players. You might have a point when the DMCA comes to Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Talking of the strength of EULAs in general as a large chunk of the gaming industry is US based and as is a large chunk of the buying market US law does have a big impact. As for the '99%' of us there's the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive, 2001) which given the similarities between the two, especially regarding licensing should have the same effects on eulas as the DMCA. DMCA and EUCD act partly as enforcers of the WIPO treaty which is what's being talked about when someone mentions 'international copyright law' in this instance [as opposed to simply the Berne Convention which could be considered the 'usual' international copyrigh law], and is also something that should guaruntee the legal integrity of EULAs. And as far as I know that's been the case so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly_flyer10 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Not really considering shops dont accept returns of opened software, in the US you can open the software, read the EULA and return it if you disagree with it. Here you cannot return opened software so its 2 completely different situations because you cant get your money back if you disagree with the EULA there for the EULA is not legal. As for US law, whether its binding depends on what court they go to, cases have gone both ways so that weakens your argument even further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Like I said Mortenson v Timberline was a case of a shrink wrapped EULA, they couldn't read the EULA before they couldn't take it back... still ruled the EULA was valid. Look if you want to ignore the EULA go for it, but it is a legally binding contract without which most people wouldn't bother making software because of the liability they open themselves up to without it. The contract of purchase between you and the shop is not the contract between you and the publisher, the publisher has nothing to do with the actual sale of the goods from shop to you. You might not think it's fair but it's still the law. As for the cases that have gone against the EULA, I haven't seen the details of every single case but my understanding is that the ruling has been on the legitimacy of the contents of the EULA and not the legitimacy of the EULA itself. Anyone can take a contract to court to argue that the details are illegal, that doesn't mean all contracts are irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly_flyer10 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Its not legally binding, one countries laws do not pass to anothers no matter what you may think. Courts have decided both ways in the US where you can take it back. No court has decided in the UK because any coompany knows they would lose if they ever took it to court. FFS SI are saying themselves to ignore part of this years EULA, how much more blatant do you want it to get? Prove to me that EULAs are legally binding in UK law or shut up. You havent, you cant, so just walk away because you are wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.