eula
Latest
LGJ: Are game resales at risk?
Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: A new decision out of the 9th Circuit court of appeals is potentially bad news for GameStop, eBay, gamers and pretty much anyone who buys software. The full decision in Vernor v. Autodesk is available here [PDF], but this column should provide a pretty good summary and analysis of the case, which deals primarily with a legal concept called the "first-sale doctrine." The doctrine, which falls under copyright law, is what allows libraries to lend books, DVDs, CDs, etc., and what allows for the concept of resale. The first-sale doctrine was added to the Copyright Act of 1976 after being introduced in case law in 1908. In short, the doctrine lets you, as the purchaser of a legal copy of a book, movie, game, or other copyrighted work, resell or give away that legal copy to subsequent owners without permission from the copyright holder. It doesn't give you any rights to the work protected by the copyright, or the ability to otherwise violate the copyright by making copies of the work; it only removes the copyright holder's control over legal, physical copies of the work after they are first sold to a consumer. In other words, GameStop's business owes everything to this doctrine.
The Lawbringer: A rookie's guide to the TOU
Welcome to the Lawbringer, Wow.com's weekly guide to the intersection of law and the World of Warcraft. I'm Amy Schley, a new law school graduate and your tour guide through the rabbit hole of contracts, copyrights and other craziness. Greetings again! We're on part three of an examination of the various legal documents to which we must consent in order to play our beloved World of Warcraft. Parts one and two examined the End User License Agreement; this segment will look at the Terms of Use ("TOU"). The first thing you'll notice as you examine the TOU is that it is quite similar to the EULA. This is by design -- while one of the EULA's provisions is to agree to the Terms of Use, the repetition increases the likelihood we'll actually read it. There are quite a few differences, including the code of conduct and the naming policy.
The Lawbringer: Rookie's guide to the EULA, part 2
Welcome to the Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly examination of the intersection between law and the World of Warcraft. Your tour guide is Amy Schley, recent law school grad. Last week, we looked at the first half of the EULA -- the license limitations, the steps to terminate the agreement and a few other provisions. This week is the back half of the EULA -- the warranties, conflict resolution provisions and miscellaneous provisions. Export controls Section 8 prohibits the export and sale of the game to countries the United States has embargoed or persons that are on the "Specially Designated Nationals" list, essentially a list of terrorist organizations. Alas, this means that we won't be settling the War on Terror with world PvP death match.
Private server company forced to pay Blizzard $88 million
A judge in the California Central District Court ruled Thursday that Scapegaming, also known as Alyson Reeves, has lost its lawsuit against Blizzard. Scapegaming had set up private Blizzard servers that included a microtransactions market. Blizzard sued them in October 2009 for copyright infringement. As we've covered here before, private servers are a violation of license limitations of the EULA. Blizzard considers any violation of those license limitations to be copyright infringement and sues people for such. Furthermore, Blizzard established in the "Bnetd" case that crafting software to set up a private server is a copyright infringement all on its own. The total reward of $88,594,589 comes from $3,053,339 of inappropriate profits, $63,600 of attorney's fees, and $85,478,600 of statutory damages. Statutory damages are damages required by law that are increased for willful and commercially based infringement. Scapegaming may appeal the amount.
The Lawbringer: A rookie's guide to the EULA
Welcome to the Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly exploration of the intersection of the World of Warcraft and the law. Acting as your tour guide is Amy Schley, just returned from Hell the bar exam. Hello again! To kick off the return of the Lawbringer, we're going to move into rookie guide territory. Now, I know, I know -- your rogue "High Warlord Pwnyoo" is ready and willing to gank my mains, my alts and even my husband's toons for calling you a rookie. But by a show of hands, how many of you have actually read the EULA instead of just scrolling down to the bottom to click "Accept"? Given the paucity of hands raised out there, I figure it's time for a rookie's guide to the End User License Agreement.
The Lawbringer: MDY v. Blizzard Q & A
Welcome to The Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly look at the intersection of law and the World of Warcraft. I'm a new law school grad, acting as your tour guide after escaping the rapping, taco-eating armadillos of my bar prep class. Last week's timeline of the MDY v. Blizzard case seemed to prompt more questions than it answered. Therefore, I want to take this week to go through the many questions and comments that were left on the site or emailed to me. Sean asked: "Can you explain the unfair competition claim? As the only one that MDY won (far as I can tell), it's interesting in its own right." Blizzard alleged that MDY's business practices of selling a product that encouraged people to violate their EULA & TOU was a willful and knowing violation of Arizona's Unfair Competition Law. MDY moved for summary judgment and Blizzard didn't oppose the motion. MDY "won" by default.
Flameseeker Chronicles: Prince Rurik is on the phone, and he says you got banned
Last week's Massively outing into Guild Wars was another success, with [MVOP] -- Massively's Thursday night Guild Wars group -- tearing through the Great Northern Wall and Fort Ranik missions. As usual there was much fun and hilarity, including the above pictured gangsta Necro and someone's incredibly loud cellphone ringing on Vent in the middle of a cutscene. In the end we were divided over whether Rurik was making or receiving a phone call, but either way it was another dose of our standard silliness. Guild Wars -- as with any MMO -- is so much better when you have a good group that you can have fun with along the way, and [MVOP] has it down to an art. So what's up next? Well, at the end of our last outing we all landed at the Frontier Gate, so we'll be picking up the primary quest from Warmaster Riga. That will take us on to Ruins of Surmia, then to Nolani Academy. Once Nolani Academy is finished, we'll land in Yak's Bend and it's time to wave goodbye to Ascalon as we enter the Northern Shiverpeaks. I want to make a quick note about our overall goals for [MVOP]. The overall goal of the group is to play through Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, then Eye of the North, moving through the campaigns and expansions in the order of release just like they did back in the olden days. Guild Wars is a huge game, with side quests and extra towns in every area. To try to do them all together would take us a few years, so on Thursday nights we're going to focus strictly on missions and the main storyline. One of the great things about this group is that so many of us are playing together outside of the scheduled time, so if you get a chance, make sure you explore some of these extra quests in the places we've been. Finally, if you'd like to join [MVOP], we'd love to have you. It's certainly not too late to catch up, so send a whisper to my IGN -- Rubi Djinn -- and I'll be happy to add you to our group. Now that we're all caught up on Thursday nights, what's going on in the rest of Tyria? It's been an interesting week, so follow along after the jump as we look at why the population of Tyria is suddenly a little thinner.
UK game retailer claims 7,500 souls with a legal agreement prank
Don't think about it, just answer: Do you really read all of those agreements and legal texts that you need to scroll through when installing a game, signing up for a service or buying something online? Really? 7,500 people either don't, or they don't care about their eternal salvation, because UK video game retailer Gamestation could now legally own 7,500 souls if it wanted to. On April 1, it added a clause to its legal purchase agreement that granted the company "a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul," and 7,500 game buyers happily clicked to agree. The company was just April Fooling -- the claims have been legally renounced, and worried patrons can click through to the website to get their soul back (and a special discount code for their trouble). But next time, you should probably read the fine print a little more closely.
EVE Online player creates incredible multi-box setup
From irritating spam-bots to automated farming macros hogging the best spots, macros and bots are almost universally despised in every MMO. Multi-boxing, on the other hand, is a much more ambiguous idea that has been common since as far back as the early days of EverQuest. Although there's nothing in the rules of most games against one player controlling multiple characters, there are usually rules against automating gameplay. This includes sending keystrokes and mouse commands from one computer to several clients, the preferred method for multi-boxers to control multiple game clients simultaneously. After a hit from the banhammer for "macro use", EVE Online player Zhek Kromtor engineered a low-tech solution to his rule-breaking problem. With a setup that looks like something out of The Matrix or Minority Report, Zhek has set up eight monitors and eight computers to run a total of fourteen EVE clients simultaneously. To control them all at the same time without rule-breaking macro software, Zhek has tied together six computer mice with packing tape and wooden skewers. Six separate keypads have been taped together, with yet more wooden rods letting him activate the modules on six ships at a time. According to the EVE EULA, using software to send keystrokes isn't allowed but there's nothing about taping together keyboards and mice. Whether you think this kind of setup is awesome or a blatant flaunting of the rules, putting together this kind of setup is definitely a bizarre achievement. [via Kotaku]
Apple to charge for future iPad OS updates
The Golden Master version of the iPhone OS 3.2 SDK has begun making its way to developers -- it's the shipping version of the software that these devs must use to create their killer iPad apps. At the same time Apple made the GM version of the SDK available, they also posted two other new files including an iPad firmware restore file (useless without an iPad) and the end-user licensing agreement (EULA) for iPad. What's unique about the file containing the EULA is that it shows that future OS updates for iPad may not be free. Paraphrasing the statement, it says that Apple will provide free iPad OS updates from time to time, up to and including the next major iPad OS release following the version that the iPad shipped with. The example notes that if the iPad shipped with iPad 3.x software, Apple would provide free updates up to and including 4.0. The common interpretation is that the next major OS update (iPad 4.0) will be available to iPad owners for free, but that Apple reserves the right to charge for iPad 5.0 and beyond. This is the case with the iPod touch as well -- iPhone owners have received OS updates for free, while iPod touch owners have had to pay US$9.95 for major OS updates. This policy has to do with Apple's interpretation of the ever-popular GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) requirements that are usually talked about during the quarter earnings calls. [via MacRumors]
The Lawbringer: Euro-ver my head, contract law edition
Welcome to the Lawbringer, your weekly stop at the intersection of law and Warcraft. I am your crossing guard, trying desperately to not get run over myself. First, I want to apologize for being a day late, but my week was spent preparing for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. Unfortunately, the test was channeling Illidian. If I get a letter in a few weeks saying that I'm not yet responsible enough to be a lawyer, I will not be surprised. Anyway, on to this week's promised topic: European Contract Law. We'll be approaching the same topics we covered on my side of the pond: contract formation, contract termination, and unfairness. These concepts form the basis of players' relationship with Blizzard, just like they do in the US. Whether Blizzard has the right to publish information about your avatars, ban you from the game, delete your achievements, or force you to resolve disputes in a mediation are all affected by the laws of the country in which a player resides. The first challenge in this column is that there traditionally has been no "European" contract law; these issues were decided at a national level through the home country's common or civil law system. Trans-nationalism being all the rage, however, the politicos of the European Union have formed the Commision on European Contract Law which has drafted Principles of European Contract Law. A Common Frame of Reference "toolbox" to help various European legislatures standardize the various laws of contract across the continent to match these Principles. What this means, though, is that this law is in a state of flux -- and I am not a barrister, abogada, rechtsanwalt, advokat, or avocat. Take everything in this column with a big grain of salt. And possibly a margarita to wash it down.
MagicJack sues Boing Boing, gets bounced out of court
The MagicJack is a VoIP dongle that hooks ye olde landline telephone up to the world of tomorrow via a humble computer. By all accounts, it seems to work pretty well and does the job it promises. Sadly, it doesn't seem like we can say the same about its management team. A post on Boing Boing in April 2008 addressed some pretty concerning aspects of the MagicJack EULA: it demands that you cede your right to sue the company and give it permission to "analyze" the numbers you call, but even more worrying was the fact that no links to said EULA were provided either on the website or at the point of sale. That is to say, every purchaser of the product was agreeing to something he or she hadn't (and couldn't have, without tracking the URL down via Google) read. Oh, and apparently the software comes without an uninstaller. The whole thing could've been just a nice warning tale about not getting into contracts without reading the fine print, but MagicJack CEO Dan Borislow, hardly a man who shrinks from controversy, felt so offended by Boing Boing's, erm, statement of factual reality that he took them to court, citing that his company was exposed to "hate, ridicule and obloquy" (we had to look that last one up, it's just another word for ridicule, which makes the whole thing a tautology. Lawyers, eh?). Unsurprisingly, he lost the case, but he did manage to squeeze in one last act of shady behavior prior to his loss by offering to pay for Boing Boing's silence regarding the proceedings and costs. After he was turned down, MagicJack's coffers were still lightened by $54,000 to cover the defendants' legal fees, whereas its reputation can now be found somewhere in the Monster Cable vicinity of pond scum central. Great job, Boing Boing.
The Lawbringer: Contracts and player bans
Welcome to The Lawbringer, where we investigate the intersection of law and Warcraft and answer such questions as what do you call a raid of lawyers in the Maelstrom. Answer? A good start. Last week, we looked at what is private about our armory profiles. Hint: not much. But, life has a funny way of providing a use for things we thought were annoying. Check out this email we received Saturday: "Two days ago I lost my wedding ring. Of course my wife of 4 years finds it odd and starts to question what I do at night while she is at work. After hours of arguing, I remember about the WoW Armory. I rush to the PC and show her almost minute by minute what I was doing at night. She knows my characters and knew it was my character, and the Armory showed her everything."So remember, guys and dolls, the Armory can convert your spouse's infidelity aggro to regular WoW aggro. Use at your own risk. Today, we're going to look at losing the ability to play WoW, such as with player bans like the one given to Ensidia a few weeks ago. However, just as understanding how one gets into a contract helps in understanding how that contract affects players, learning about how to get out of a contract helps in understanding how bans affect players.
The Lawbringer: Contracts and the achievement tracker
Welcome to this week's episode of the Lawbringer! Each week we'll dive into the intricacies of law and the World of Warcraft. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to slay demons of ignorance for the benefit of your fellow denizens of Azeroth. Demons of ignorance slain: 1/4782*. *Number of ignorant demons may be subject to nerfing. So last week I introduced y'all to a bit of legal theorizing about how law and WoW might mix if they got pugged together. (Hint: not very well.) Y'all also were clamoring for my dissertation on gold farming. I want to give a big thank you to commentator Arnold for his excellent suggestions for improvements to make, and I promise I will be making those corrections soon. This week we'll be moving into some more concrete topics, prompted by a email from my mailbag: The new armory prints out date and timestamps for every little move you make in game. Run a heroic, it will show the date and time for every boss you kill. I didn't mind when it printed a date for achievements. But such fine-grained detail being so publicly available is .. invasive of privacy. This is an excellent issue, Wendy, and a subject of much qq-ing on the forums. However, before we can look into what privacy Blizzard may be invading, we need to understand our relationship with Blizzard; to do that, we need to look at a bit of contract law.
NCsoft bans 16,000 Aion accounts
One of the continued complaints we hear from Aion players is that bots litter the game's digital landscape, severely reducing the enjoyment of actual flesh-n-bones players. So we feel inclined to shout, "Good news, everybody!" at today's announcement by NCsoft that nearly 16,000 accounts have been banned during a recent unscheduled server reboot. That's a huge number and certainly nothing to scoff about. This should hopefully alleviate much of the problem, at least temporarily -- and then future banhammers will likely come crashing down. We hope nobody was caught in the crossfire with today's bans, but if you do find yourself without an Aion account to play and are 100% sure of your innocence, you can create a support ticket. Obviously, this isn't ideal if you're suddenly without your account, so with any luck there aren't any cases of mistakenly banned players.
Psystar dealt crushing blow in ongoing legal proceedings with Apple
Yesterday, Judge William Alsup, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, dealt Psystar a crushing blow in its ongoing litigation with Apple over whether or not Psystar could market and sell non-Apple computers running modified copies of Apple's operating system. If you're not familiar with the circus case, I refer you to, well...grab a coffee and click here. The two companies, embroiled in litigation since early last year, recently completed pre-trial discovery and each filed cross motions for summary judgment. Judge Alsup put the ultimate hurt on Psystar when it granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and denied Psystar's motion for the same. In a sweeping order (courtesy Groklaw), the court agreed with Apple's take on the case and dismissed all of Psystar's defenses, both on the merits and for having waived and failed to properly plead. The end result was a dramatic and startling court order in an ongoing series of dramatic legal squabbles between the two companies. And at least one of Psystar's attorneys saw this coming. The litigation doesn't end here; various issues still remain for trial such as breach of contract and trademark infringement, but Psystar has been gutted. The court is clearly unsympathetic to Psystar's core position and while damages on the copyright issues falling in Apple's favor in the order have not been ruled upon, it would probably behoove Psystar to start looking under the couch cushions for spare change. A hearing is scheduled for December 14 on the remaining issues and for damages. Read on for a more detailed analysis of the court's order....
Important Norwegian consumer reads Amazon Kindle's EULA, sends angry letter
Remember that legal dealio with Apple that erupted after the Norwegian Consumer Council, Forbrukerrådet, read the iTunes EULA? Right, that toothless complaint that waffled on for years until it was finally rendered moot by Apple going DRM-free -- long after Apple benefited from the iTunes-to-iPod lock-in. Well, it's brewing again only this time the council has focused its meticulously crafted aluminum spectacles, often highlighted with vibrant reds or blues, upon Amazon's practice of tying its content exclusively to the Kindle's new international reader. According to a critique published by the Council's boss, Hans Marius Graasvold, the fine print in the Kindle's terms of service, "violated several provisions of Norwegian consumer protection law." He takes exception with Amazon's ability terminate the terms of service entirely should customers violate said terms. In other words, Amazon could deny you access to all your purchased books if you make an illegal copy of just one -- unimaginable by brick-and-mortar standards where a Wal-mart could take your entire CD collection should you decide to rip a single disc. Graasvold's also miffed at Amazon's ability to change the agreement at any time without advanced notification. The Council does not currently have official support from the country's Consumer Ombudsman as it did when it went after Apple. For the moment, the council says that it's awaiting feedback from Amazon and Norwegian publishers before proceeding with what Graasvold calls, "an iTunes 2 case if we are not satisfied." Good luck with that.
Psystar, Apple file motions for summary judgment
Apple and Psystar have been embroiled in litigation for quite a while now. At the core of the dispute: Psystar modifies Apple's operating system software so that it can run on its clone machines. It then sells its computers with Mac OS installed to, well, anybody who wants one. As you can imagine, this does not make Apple happy. Anybody familiar with The Great Clone Crackdown of 1997 will tell you that Apple likes to keep a very tight grip on any device that presumes to run its software. Apple points out that Windows machines are a mishmash of often conflicting hardware and suffer from quirks and errors and incompatibilities that such a set up can bring. So Apple's cadre of lawyers descended quickly on Psystar. In July of last year, the company sued Psystar for copyright and software licensing violations, quickly amending its lawsuit to additionally charge Psystar with violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). And there was much lawyering. More than a year later, now that discovery has been completed, the two parties have each filed for summary judgment, which, in effect, asks the judge to rule in favor of the filing party because enough evidence has been shown that either makes or breaks the lawsuit. Psystar's argument, and the one covered in its motion, somewhat relies on the "first sale doctrine" which says that any purchaser of a copyrighted product can then take that lawfully-made copy and sell it, so long as no additional copies can be made. For its part, Apple says that when one "purchases" its OS, you are only purchasing a license to use the product. Its Software Licensing Agreement (SLA) quite clearly states [PDF link to Snow Leopard SLA] that the user cannot modify the software to run on a non-Apple system. The idea that what you are purchasing is a license to use the product is pretty commonplace among software manufacturers, because, the argument runs, you can cut any software company's profits off at the knees if every purchaser became an owner with free rein to redistribute the software. Apple states that no software company in its right mind would put the money into research and development of any software product at all if that were the end result of bringing its product to market. Groklaw suggests this could have ramifications for FOSS and and the GPL.
ECA creates Gamers for Digital Rights movement
When it comes to dealing with the politics of software piracy, most lobbying groups side with the creators of the content that's being buccaneered. While groups like the Entertainment Software Association are serving a just and noble cause, the Entertainment Consumers Association is worried that this one-sided representation could end up with non-pirates getting the royal shaft. To better voice our plight to agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the ECA recently formed an initiative called "Gamers for Digital Rights." The GDR's mission is to "get the information out to consumers on the ins and outs of content protection," instructing its members on their rights in relation to restrictive DRM and unfair EULAs. Those interested in joining the group can sign up on the ECA's Facebook page. If you're hoping to get into the action right this second, ECA president Hal Halpin has penned a petition you can sign and send to the FTC, who's currently holding town hall meetings to discuss the future of DRM. Or you can, you know, do none of that stuff. Just don't let us hear you complaining when the next Sporegate debacle starts up. [Via Shacknews]
Snow Leopard: In EULA we trust
Just before the release of Snow Leopard, Uncle Walt Mossberg did the unthinkable by writing that the $29 Leopard upgrade: "will work properly on ...Tiger equipped Macs, so you can save the extra $140." We reported that as well but didn't have all the facts verified at the time. Gizmodo likened Walt to a pirate and guessed that he'll have to apologize or at least clarify his position. Now, after buying the family edition, I have done every sort of installation known to man and have the facts. It seems that Walt was right, but he didn't tell you the whole story. You can take the $29 upgrade disc and install it over Leopard, over Tiger, or over a freshly formatted hard drive. The disc doesn't care. Regardless of whether you pay $29, $49 or $169, you get the same disc with the same capabilities. But just because you have a disc, if you use it for a purpose not intended upon purchase, you are breaking your agreement with Apple. The contents of the disc are the property of Apple and how that intellectual property is to be used is determined by the EULA (End User License Agreement) that you agree to before installation. For each method of purchase the EULA is different. For the $169 package which includes iLife '09 and iWork '09 this is what you agree to: "A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time." Clear enough. You can use it on one computer. It doesn't say that you need any operating system to start with. I would assume that you can put it on as many hard disks as you want, as long as you only use those hard disks with one specified computer.
