And from my side, I am saying a big:

THANK YOU GOG

for this opportunity.

ok, we still don´t know, if they take it into account, but at least they communicate it, way ahead and as you said give us time to voice our concerns.

+1 for GOG

Pray tell where did I say that. I was writing a post listing my personal concerns with the listed changes, not making any comments about those others may have.
Yeah...

OK, finally got to read the new User Agreement and Privacy Policy documents and the posts in this thread.

Before going into any details, I’d like to say that the language and wording of the new User Agreement and Privacy Policy is a lot different from that of the existing ones. Which is refreshing, but I have to ask – will the final legally binding texts use this language or should be expect to see them more in line with the current ones? Somehow I’m having a really hard time believing this will be it. And in the case it’ll be replaced by “proper” legal language, then it’s quite possible that the meaning of some terms will change or be open to different interpretations.

Also, some terms seem to apply to the upcoming GOG Galaxy client, and I wonder why this is not stated clearly.

Next, a big thank you to Azilut for his posts and [url=https://www.gog.com/forum/general/upcoming_update_to_gogcom_policies/post91]here, as they address a good number of my own questions and concerns, and in a far more eloquent manner than I'd ever manage.

User Agreement That’s a good addition, and should put any concerns at ease about EULA terms that don’t align with how GOG content works. Though for this to actually work, I'd like to see specific definitions included in the Agreement. For instance, there's one a single mention of "DRM-free" in the whole document, and that's in the summary text for §15.1 which means that it doesn't even count. Not good enough, as it does not bind GOG with the obligation to use encryption, and it should. What good is it if I’m careful with my credentials if GOG isn’t? So, please make it clear that you actually do. What info does this public profile contain and share with others? Will there be options to select certain info and keep other private?
The legal text uses the term “connect” and the summary the term “communicate”; the meaning of these two is not exactly identical. What does “connect” entail and how will it be achieved? Through the GOG Galaxy client only? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you, that since you're going the Steam route with these things, that certain parts of one's Steam profile is public (if the user chooses so) on the site as well. If you go the client only route for GOG, you're splitting the community in two, or indirectly forcing everyone to use the GOG Galaxy client. Does this restriction apply only to gift codes sent directly to others via the checkout page or does it also apply when choosing ourselves as recipients?
Also is that per gift code, i.e. multiple games and/ or videos on one code, or is it per item?
Since there's been quite a number of questions regarding this, you may want to clarify the situation. Does this mean that you won’t support people that may not be able to access your cdn servers due to blacklists by providing access to ftp servers, like for example people in China? That sounds as if the Fair Price Package doesn’t apply when one ends up paying more in USD. Given the rest of the text, I assume that this is not what is meant, so rewording seems to be necessary. It’s quite possible that local laws conflict with some of the terms regarding refunds. I'm mentioning this as local law is taken into account in §9.1, and indirectly in §14.1, but not here. I see the wording in this one has gotten stricter than it is in the current ToU. Which now begs the question – what is considered a “significant” tech issue? The user and GOG (Support) may not define/ interpret the severity of tech issues in the same way. I just have to say this – thanks GOG for taking my real, hard earned money and turning it into something without cash value; I hope you see the irony of that video of yours mocking Gamersgate and their blue coins.
I assume that this also covers your arses for the store credit expiring, even though it's our real money bound to GOG. I’d appreciate it if GOG elaborated on this one – can’t say I understand what it’s about and how it works. I assume this also covers cases where you remove extras or full games/ videos from our accounts, yes?

I also strongly agree with Wishbone’s suggestion here. Sorry, I have to ask – what else would be included here if the rights you’re asking were not limited?
The wording also makes it sound like GOG has to ask every time and wait for the user’s approval of such rights. Are we allowed to be disappointed if you never reply to the tickets we submit to you? I may be missing something here, but how can you guarantee it works and not take responsibility? Are we to assume that the third box on the front page under “GOG.COM: ALL THAT IS GOOD IN GAMING” will go away or be rephrased? I’m glad to see this change, as that "State of California, USA laws" for everyone in the world didn’t make sense and bothered me. Also nice to see the notified by email, as it always bothers me when sites say “it’ll be online and it’s your responsibility to keep track of changes”.
Contacting you with queries and concerns also appears to be a nice gesture, yet empty, as it doesn’t bind GOG to act on those, except perhaps to reply to them.


To be continued...

Privacy Policy

First off, nowhere in the Policy is it sated what personal information exactly is collected, stored and processed. I’d like this to be clear.
Same goes for the public profile mentioned.

The “Our Commitment To Data Security” paragraph of the current Privacy Policy is completely missing in this draft. Does this mean that the SSL encryption about personal information being entered and transmitted and no storage of credit card information won’t apply? How will these be handled in the future?

There’s also no mention of web beacons which I’m fairly sure will still be used. Same as with the User Agreement. If this only applies to multilayer/ on-line games, please make it clear, as now it sounds like it also applies to single-player/ off-line games. If it indeed does, I’d like to know how this sort of data is collected. These terms contradict each other. Revise? As Goodaltgamer mentioned here, written consent may be required for this. What if one doesn't consent to their personal info being stored and processed outside of the EEA?

Also, since the EEA and US use different Privacy regulations and laws, does this mean that when stored and processed in the US, the European regulations and laws won’t apply? I’m not entirely sure, but I think it’s the location of the user that matters over the location of the server. In §8.1 (c) it’s stated that accepting promotional material is optional, while in §8.1 (a) it’s not. Does this mean that there’s no opt out and that this is going to be opt-in by default? What are these details? And here’s that public profile again, with no info on what it includes.

And a friendly heads up - you may want to have these documents proof-read before putting them online.


EDIT: typos

It's covered in §6.10.

Well, to begin with, they could be asking for an exclusive license.

I don't know enough about IP law to understand the nuances, but my general impression is that this kind of language is needed in order for GOG not to be committing copyright infringement just by displaying our forum posts (along with the attendant possibility that another user might then quote the post, modify the words when quoting (see for example the common "I fixed that for you" joke), etc.) Hence the need for rights to "modify/reproduce/create derivative works from". But, someone more versed in IP law than myself would have to weigh in to comment on whether there is anything untoward in the rights GOG is asking for.

There are a lot of paragraphs in the draft agreement that I suspect might be unenforceable because of exactly this kind of issue - specifically, they describe a state of affairs or make a request, rather than creating a right for or imposing an obligation on one of the parties to the agreement. For example, I have this concern about any paragraph that includes the words "Please don't..." - so if I do, have I breached the agreement, or am I just being impolite? However, I didn't get into this in my earlier comments because, outside of the few paragraphs that create rights for the user, the enforceability of the agreement is GOG's problem and it's not my place to advise them on it.

The "guarantee" is the refund policy - the general intent of para. 14.2 seems to be something like "Outside of our refund policy, we offer no guarantees that our content works and accept no liability if it doesn't." Which makes it all the more important for GOG to get specific in the Agreement about what counts as a "significant technical problem" for refund purposes.

Although for many of us, Cyprus isn't any better - personally, it would be far easier for me to get to California. (Though it's probably irrelevant in either case, as even if GOG locked my entire account, the cost of repurchasing the entire GOG.com catalogue is likely significantly less than the cost of flying to California and hiring a lawyer to fight GOG's decision.)

I guess they mean Intellectual property and similar, but their is one handicap there and not only here on GOG. What they are asking for is kind of illegal by the Berne convention (signed by Cypres as well as Poland). I found this part is kind of common everywhere, but it is contradicting the Berne convention.

For works simultaneously published in a signatory country and one or more non-signatory countries, the signatory country is the country of origin

Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration

This does not apply to the US though. It has not fully recognised IIRC the Berne convention. Just looked it up myself, no, US ratified it fully.

After rethinking: I think it might be more easy for them as well for us, if they just say for what the want the agreement, would be, me thinks, also legally be more binding ;) No contract can take away international agreed rights, only states could do this ;)

why it is not taking my other editing............grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I wanted to ´repost´ some more of Azilut´s post and it doesn´t let me......even just a new simple quote doesn´t work after here.....so the following bold messages are quote from above......

The wording also makes it sound like GOG has to ask every time and wait for the user’s approval of such rights.

There are a lot of paragraphs in the draft agreement that I suspect might be unenforceable because of exactly this kind of issue - specifically, they describe a state of affairs or make a request, rather than creating a right for or imposing an obligation on one of the parties to the agreement. For example, I have this concern about any paragraph that includes the words "Please don't..." - so if I do, have I breached the agreement, or am I just being impolite? However, I didn't get into this in my earlier comments because, outside of the few paragraphs that create rights for the user, the enforceability of the agreement is GOG's problem and it's not my place to advise them on it.


Again, according to the Berne convention and other law the whole internet exchange is in a limbo.....what we type is our Int.Prop, as stated in the Berne conv. It even gets more complicated, as there is an EXTRA paragraph about

under Article 5(4), when a work is published simultaneously in several signatory countries (under Article 3(4), "simultaneously" is defined as "within 30 days", the country with the shortest term of protection is defined as the country of origin

So under those circumstances, how do you want to decide in the time of the internet, which country is applicable?????

If they would clearly state, what they really want to do, it would be a clear and cut case, but this is to vague (after reading the Berne conventions and the newer version the TRIPS agreement.

which does state

Exceptions to copyright protection are required to be clearly defined and narrow in scope and reach


That´s dear GOG, why I suggest, just state clear and simply why.

And as a big plus, no more babbling about it ;)


I may be missing something here, but how can you guarantee it works and not take responsibility? Are we to assume that the third box on the front page under “GOG.COM: ALL THAT IS GOOD IN GAMING” will go away or be rephrased?

The "guarantee" is the refund policy - the general intent of para. 14.2 seems to be something like "Outside of our refund policy, we offer no guarantees that our content works and accept no liability if it doesn't." Which makes it all the more important for GOG to get specific in the Agreement about what counts as a "significant technical problem" for refund purposes.


They actually give us a bit more rights than others do with this. As Azilut correctly points out, and here GOG would be in disadvantage, significant technical problem is in the eye of the user, not visa versa.


I’m glad to see this change, as that "State of California, USA laws" for everyone in the world didn’t make sense and bothered me.

Although for many of us, Cyprus isn't any better - personally, it would be far easier for me to get to California. (Though it's probably irrelevant in either case, as even if GOG locked my entire account, the cost of repurchasing the entire GOG.com catalogue is likely significantly less than the cost of flying to California and hiring a lawyer to fight GOG's decision.)


which as pointed out above, might not be even legal......kind of makes me laugh.......

Your post just read as if you were dismissing any privacy concerns because you felt safe sharing your information.

This is one of the reasons I find it really hard to believe that the final User Agreement and Privacy Policy to be put online will use this kind of language and wording.I can see it go into their FAQ though.

It's becoming increasingly popular to make user agreements "more accessible" using that kind of language. I expect the trend will last until the first time such an agreement ends up in front of a court and the judge says "what am I supposed to do with this nonsense?". But hey, I could be wrong.

I would like to thank the posters here who have detailed their concerns and requests for clarification. You have made some very good points. I haven't quite the patience or time at the moment to go into such detail, but as GOG has been forthright in disclosing planned policy changes and soliciting our feedback, I will provide the following "content:"

With the adoption, redaction/apology ("back to our roots",) and full-on re-embrace of regional pricing I realized I needed to step back a bit from GOG because it was getting too big and behaving increasingly like a typical unethical capitalist entity. These policy changes are more of the same, I think. I detest the presence of movies here (my primary reason for gaming is to fill an entertainment gap left by actively avoiding movies and music and the propaganda inherent in those media, to a greater degree than in games possibly) and am not looking forward to Galaxy in the least, as I blame these recent developments for the changes in policies that I was previously quite satisfied with.

I will continue to watch for updates to the games I have. I am dual-booting and transitioning to Linux, so I can at least look forward to more native Linux versions of the many games in my library. I will buy KotOR 2 if it gets here because the first one has me hooked. I might be tempted into other games as well, but my effort will be to resist most future purchases and I've resolved to cease gifting/giveaways entirely due to these recent and pending policy changes.

I regret if my activity on these forums or my generosity to other users enriched GOG in any way that might have facilitated this growth.

In light of recent comments by rawmilk905 and others, I feel I should explain that none of the issues I have raised in this thread are meant to express a mistrustful or cynical attitude towards GOG itself. It is in my nature to spot vague or contradictory language that could potentially be abused, and I believe that such issues should be pointed out and dealt with before problems arise (since pre-emptively addressing potential problems is the point of having an agreement in the first place), but that does not necessarily mean that I think GOG intends to or would abuse such language. I just don't think that legally binding agreements should ever be written with the assumption that either party is going to behave reasonably.

This is not intended as a criticism of raawmilk905 and others who have expressed concerns - they have their reasons, and I am not seeking to disagree with them. I simply wanted to clarify that we are approaching this issue from different perspectives.

[i]GOG.com Privacy Policy
4.2b
Details of your use of GOG services
including, but not limited to: metrics
information about when and how you use
GOG services (such as what game(s) you
are playing); traffic data; your location; and
your purchase history;[/i]

What?! You'll inject spyware into installers? Or it'll be tracked just through Galaxy client, which is completely optional iirc?
If tracking is enabled through Galaxy client, i'm absolutely ok with it. Just don't make service inferior to what it is now. If some people want to be lurkers, who don't want to be tracked or spied upon, they should keep this freedom.

Indeed.
Also this should be added: