Posted December 28, 2014
Grargar
Insert cat to continue
Registered: Aug 2012
From Greece
Tarnicus
Stormcrow
Registered: May 2011
From Australia
real.geizterfahr
Grumpy Old Gamer
Registered: Apr 2010
From Spain
Posted December 28, 2014
Like we said, our idea is to allow anyone to gift 5 copies of each game per day as a measure to stop resellers and other such evil-doers from buying a lot out to sell at a higher price. Fortunately for forum contest winners, that makes receiving gifts unlimited!
Post edited December 28, 2014 by real.geizterfahr
Pidgeot
Sale Tracker
Registered: Dec 2009
From Germany
Posted December 28, 2014
Like we said, our idea is to allow anyone to gift 5 copies of each game per day as a measure to stop resellers and other such evil-doers from buying a lot out to sell at a higher price. Fortunately for forum contest winners, that makes receiving gifts unlimited!
That's a very important difference, though: the user agreement suggests "5 gift orders per day", the post suggests "unlimited gift orders per day, but each game may only appear in 5 orders per day".
So, which is correct?
HypersomniacLive
The Reluctant Voter
Registered: Sep 2011
From Vatican City
Posted December 28, 2014
high rated
That's a very important difference, though: the user agreement suggests "5 gift orders per day", the post suggests "unlimited gift orders per day, but each game may only appear in 5 orders per day".
So, which is correct?
I know it's too late, but I must say that I expected the updated versions of the documents to reflect more of the points that were addressed in the this thread, I might be wrong, but it appears that GOG took a couple of suggestions that better cover their own arse and made the related revisions. Since this thread isn't legally binding, and given that it will soon lose its sticky status (just like the thread about the GOG Downloader support did), where does this leave us users?
shmerl
🐧
Registered: Sep 2011
From United States
Posted January 01, 2015
high rated
One very disturbing thing was noticed in the user agreement:
9.1 (b) We want you to be free to use your own GOG
content and back it up etc, but equally we need to have
legal rules to protect against misuse of the GOG content.
So (unless you have prior GOG permission) please don’t
modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer,
decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of
GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in
this Agreement or by the law in your country.
That's very much DRM-like and usually is an indicator of anticircumvention restrictions. With recent addition of passwords to RAR packages in the installer it starts looking very grim. Can you please comment on the direction all this is taking?
GOG benefited in the past from reverse engineering, tinkering with games and figuring unexpected ways to run them. Now you forbid that in the user agreement. Come on! Judging from that users can't even figure out ways to unpack packages on Linux if they don't work in Wine (because now it involves bypassing a password). Is that's what you wanted for your service??
You know perfectly well that laws in many countries are corrupted and include DMCA-1201 like restrictions which forbid even fair use DRM breaking (i.e. when there is no copyright infringement involved). So your phrase "unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" is not really helping anything. You could write "unless it's fair use and you aren't intending it for copyright infringement" or anything like that. That would be in line with remaining DRM-free.
9.1 (b) We want you to be free to use your own GOG
content and back it up etc, but equally we need to have
legal rules to protect against misuse of the GOG content.
So (unless you have prior GOG permission) please don’t
modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer,
decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of
GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in
this Agreement or by the law in your country.
GOG benefited in the past from reverse engineering, tinkering with games and figuring unexpected ways to run them. Now you forbid that in the user agreement. Come on! Judging from that users can't even figure out ways to unpack packages on Linux if they don't work in Wine (because now it involves bypassing a password). Is that's what you wanted for your service??
You know perfectly well that laws in many countries are corrupted and include DMCA-1201 like restrictions which forbid even fair use DRM breaking (i.e. when there is no copyright infringement involved). So your phrase "unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" is not really helping anything. You could write "unless it's fair use and you aren't intending it for copyright infringement" or anything like that. That would be in line with remaining DRM-free.
Post edited January 01, 2015 by shmerl
RadonGOG
Buy Sacrifice!!!
Registered: Jun 2012
From Germany
Posted January 01, 2015
9.1 (b) We want you to be free to use your own GOG
content and back it up etc, but equally we need to have
legal rules to protect against misuse of the GOG content.
So (unless you have prior GOG permission) please don’t
modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer,
decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of
GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in
this Agreement or by the law in your country.
GOG benefited in the past from reverse engineering, tinkering with games and figuring unexpected ways to run them. Now you forbid that in the user agreement. Come on! Judging from that users can't even figure out ways to unpack packages on Linux if they don't work in Wine (because now it involves bypassing a password). Is that's what you wanted for your service??
You know perfectly well that laws in many countries are corrupted and include DMCA-1201 like restrictions which forbid even fair use DRM breaking (i.e. when there is no copyright infringement involved). So your phrase "unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" is not really helping anything. You could write "unless it's fair use and you aren't intending it for copyright infringement" or anything like that. That would be in line with remaining DRM-free.
I´m really not sure about how to treat them! Maybe there ARE good reasons on those, but GOG has to state their opinions FIRST!
Rixasha
Mangeon Duster
Registered: Jul 2012
From Finland
shmerl
🐧
Registered: Sep 2011
From United States
Posted January 02, 2015
I made a more detailed post here, please feel free to comment. I'll add a wishlist entry as well shortly.
shmerl
🐧
Registered: Sep 2011
From United States
Posted January 02, 2015
I added a wishlist entry here.
Gilozard
Registered: Apr 2011
From United States
Posted January 02, 2015
9.1 (b) We want you to be free to use your own GOG
content and back it up etc, but equally we need to have
legal rules to protect against misuse of the GOG content.
So (unless you have prior GOG permission) please don’t
modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer,
decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of
GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in
this Agreement or by the law in your country.
GOG benefited in the past from reverse engineering, tinkering with games and figuring unexpected ways to run them. Now you forbid that in the user agreement. Come on! Judging from that users can't even figure out ways to unpack packages on Linux if they don't work in Wine (because now it involves bypassing a password). Is that's what you wanted for your service??
You know perfectly well that laws in many countries are corrupted and include DMCA-1201 like restrictions which forbid even fair use DRM breaking (i.e. when there is no copyright infringement involved). So your phrase "unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" is not really helping anything. You could write "unless it's fair use and you aren't intending it for copyright infringement" or anything like that. That would be in line with remaining DRM-free.
The reasons why I don't use Steam are:
1) Technical measures to mess with my ability to use my purchases
2) EULA/TOS language attempting to limit my rights with my purchases
3) Account consequences for breaking the EULA/TOS
GOG used to not be a problem on any point. Now it only passes #1. I don't buy games from GOG so that I can break the TOS to play them. I can get that with any other service, and often for a cheaper price. I buy games from GOG so that I can purchase from a store that actually meets my needs as as customer. I purchase from GOG so that I don't have that squirrelly feeling from needing to look stuff up on forums and know that I'm breaking an agreement to get the product I want. This change removes that, so I might as well shop around and get the best deal. It removes something that differentiated GOG from other services.
TL;DR This change puts GOG at exactly the same level as other 'DRM-free' services like GamersGate where I sometimes have to mess around outside the TOS to get games as I want them. If GOG isn't providing a different enough service, why should I buy here instead of a cheaper competitor?
Rixasha
Mangeon Duster
Registered: Jul 2012
From Finland
Posted January 02, 2015
GOG used to not be a problem on any point. Now it only passes #1.
The wishlist entry to kindly stop doing that is here.
Gnostic
New User
Registered: Jun 2013
From Other
Posted January 02, 2015
9.1 (b) We want you to be free to use your own GOG
content and back it up etc, but equally we need to have
legal rules to protect against misuse of the GOG content.
So (unless you have prior GOG permission) please don’t
modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer,
decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of
GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in
this Agreement or by the law in your country.
GOG benefited in the past from reverse engineering, tinkering with games and figuring unexpected ways to run them. Now you forbid that in the user agreement. Come on! Judging from that users can't even figure out ways to unpack packages on Linux if they don't work in Wine (because now it involves bypassing a password). Is that's what you wanted for your service??
You know perfectly well that laws in many countries are corrupted and include DMCA-1201 like restrictions which forbid even fair use DRM breaking (i.e. when there is no copyright infringement involved). So your phrase "unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" is not really helping anything. You could write "unless it's fair use and you aren't intending it for copyright infringement" or anything like that. That would be in line with remaining DRM-free.
shmerl
🐧
Registered: Sep 2011
From United States
Posted January 02, 2015
Some in depth reading if you are up to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Binary_software
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise25.html
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/200_ay258cck.pdf (1575–1663)
However, as others already noted, fair use regulation in copyright law can be different in different countries, so you'd need more in depth research if you are asking about particular region. In general if it's affecting you in some serious way (let's say you distribute mods and expect some company to be upset about it), it's better to get some solid legal consultation on this.
Post edited January 02, 2015 by shmerl
New User
Registered: Dec 2010
From Sweden
Posted January 02, 2015
So wait. Does this mean we can't alter the .conf files that comes with all the DOS games in the near future?