Eulas could be used to try and confuse a judge.



16:15

I think they're trying to confuse gamers and convince gamers to willingly give up rights.

I would like to see more judges or congress at least address the issue, but like Shadowstalker16 said, it seems "no one is dumb or rich enough to die on that hill". Boycotting games that include DRM or EULAs has never worked in the past, so I think the best hope for gamers is that GOG and other video game websites maintain their values and maintain their promise to protect their customers' rights.

Yes, this is actually a cornerstone of DRM free - trust. Same as it relies on the consumer trusting the company, the company also trust the user.

If a license holder revokes a licnese (wich they legaly and theorticaly can) and it is DRM'd, then the license can be removed from you. But if it is DRM free it is based on trust that you do it yourself. Trust needs to go both ways.

If a license is revoked, and you still have and use the software, than legally this is the same as pirating.

That depends if the license was revoked legally or not. EULAs are not necessary legally binding.

I would argue that Elden Ring's EULA is probably not legally binding. If Bandai Namco decided today to shut down all servers for the game in 6 months and terminate all access even offline (which the EULA seems to allow), there would rightfully be an uproar amongst customers. And Bandai Namco would most likely be found to be violating various consumer protection laws.

I would go so far as to say that no EULA is in fact legally binding. There is too much invloved, not to mention that the legalities change from contry to contry, and a globaly binding document does not exist. However, when it comes to licenses and ownership of licenses, the EULA is not actually what will decide if revoking a license is legal or not. Ther are other legal frameworks in play here, which yes it country dependant.

I agree with that, my problem is most gamers would never have the resources to sue a major game studio to prevent the studio from revoking their license illegally. That's partly why DRM-free is absolutely essential. That's also partly why I find EULAs so anti-consumer.

EULAs are a crazy invention that defies common sense. I recall reading that you can't legally be bound to a contract unless you understand the terms and EULAs are by their nature inscrutable.

Sure, if most people dedicated at least a week (perhaps several in some cases) of their lives to understanding an EULA, perhaps they could in some case, but its patently insane to expect people to do this for most purchases they make. You're can't built a social framework on this. For society to prosper, people need to do more with their time than grasp every EULA thrown at them (which they do which makes the EULAs pointless).

Laws of ownership work, because they are sensible, for the most part. People can intuitively grasp how it works and they are reused all over the place. Its great. It enforces order in a manageable way (unlike EULAs which claim to enforce order, but by virtue of their overwhelming complexity are chaos).

Open-source licenses work too, because there are few of them (the mainstream ones anyways), they are well documented and re-used all over creation. When you see a MIT, Apache 2.0 or Gnu Affero license, you don't need to read the entire bloody thing to understand what the license entails. You just need to know the license is MIT, Apache 2.0 or Gnu Affero. That's it. You see the name, you understand, you move on with your life. More sh*t getting done, less nonsensical silliness.

EULA's are often filled with crap, and are unenforceable, like that you'd owe them some subscription monthly or you can only run one instance at a time or how you have to sacrifice your first born son. Some EULA's are supposedly 40+ pages and last i recall it was accepted people don't read the EULA's as such no one follows them. Agreeing to them doesn't make them workable either.

There was a meme going around of the Windows 95 disc inside a paper sleeve and it had 'tear seal to agree with license' and so the bottom of the paper was cut instead.

Now if only i can find that foamy episode...

I think that's a valid argument. I will point to a couple counterarguments I provided earlier:

If the companies don't intend to enforce the agreement, then why include it? If the agreement has no teeth, and it's obvious that EULAs are not the norm on this website, it seems like it would be in the company's best interest not to include a EULA, if only to please customers. The most obvious answer I find is that the companies want to reserve the right to take away the game at any point in the future.

I also brought up that allowing any EULAs opens the door for unquestionably anti-consumer EULAs that say things like "this agreement may be terminated by either part at any time with or without reason." I feel like this is not as strong of an argument, but it's worth keeping in mind. If companies are allowed to include EULAs, then the next logical step is to include a means of enforcing the EULA, namely DRM.

I own this thread. Anyone posting further accepts this as legally binding as an end user of this thread.
See total nonsense, and this is why you can completely ignore them! No GOG won’t remove them, they couldn’t care less about them either, and if you use the internet in any part of their or others software you are essentially reliant on third parties who can do whatever they like, with or without user “outcries”. It’s happened time and time again. It’s not eulas, r drm, or anything else, it simply reliance on the internet. If you have a copy of the files and it runs without need to connect to the internet, then let’s see EA go round to the millions of homes and watch them delete the files rather than just turning off their servers.

Saying they are 'unenforceable nonsense' isn't exactly true.

On the other hand, other posters who say things like that they are legally binding laws, that also isn't true either.

Ultimately, whether they are "enforceable" or not is up to a Judge in a court of law to decide; sometimes a Judge would side with the EULA writers, and other times the Judge would side with the consumers.

But there is no guarantee that every and all Judges definitely will side with consumers, and against EULA writers. It could just as easily go either way.

It's a gamble as to whether or not a particular aspect of a particular EULA is enforceable or not.

Therefore, since there is a risk that diabolical EULA tenets could be enforced, in some cases, the OP is 100% right in his contention that EULAs are no good for consumers, and should be abolished.

In real life though, that would probably never happen, since big corporations, with all their BS (of which EULA are one great example), have a stranglehold over the marketplace, and lawmakers don't want to do anything about that.

I recall reading (can't recall where or in what context) that EULA's are not enforceable unless you agree before the purchase is made. This is probably why Steam moved EULA's to the game page and Epic requires to accept them at the purchase time.

On the other end, isn't GOG requiring to accept it's own EULA at every game install?
On Linux versions the installer actually show GOG's EULA instead of a simple ticking box stating "sure, I have read everything carefully".

You're right. GOG's EULA contains some terms I don't like.

For example, section 11.1 says this: "Please follow these rules regarding the GOG services and GOG content. Please read these rules carefully since failure to follow them (particularly those in relation to cheating) will be considered a material breach of this Agreement, which could lead to suspension or cancellation of your access to GOG Services."

According to GOG's EULA, section 1.1, "GOG Services" includes "any games or videos or other content which you purchase or access via us".

Section 11.1 (g) says this "Don't do or say anything which is or may be considered racist, xenophobic, sexist, defamatory or otherwise offensive or illegal. Be nice to each other please!"

Not that I support racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc., but that should not be a valid reason to terminate the agreement. According to the agreement, GOG could take away your games if you say something offensive.

One point I will make in GOG's favor is that they differentiate between "GOG Services" and "GOG Content" in the agreement. Seemingly, the agreement allows them to stop you from accessing your games online, but doesn't allow them to make you delete games you already have installed or downloaded.

That's better than most EULAs, but I still don't love it. Consumers don't have unlimited space to keep all their games and installers offline, so in many cases revoking online access to the installers is the same as taking away the game entirely. This opens up other complicated questions, like "Is GOG required legally to host installers until the end of time?"

I would be curious to hear how GOG reconciles this agreement with their stated philosophy.

There you go. FTFY
All PCs are riddled with EULAs which you aren't aware of, and which could, if enforced, may revoke your "right" to use said software. This includes OSes. Basically ANYTHING you didn't code yourself has a EULA, which can state a myriad of things. Not all of it enforceable by law, but it's there anyway.