1. I am a software developer, and as such I have worked with both lawyers and EULAs in the past... :). Although I would not consider these to be great qualifications, it does mean I do know something about what I'm talking about. Including the processes involved in getting an EULA approved and everything.
2. Pray tell, where might this disclaimer have been in any of your previous posts which I quoted...? What, it wasn't? So you were giving bad general advice, based on US case-law...?
3. I.e. a regular full time employee. The pay for which is consistent and not based on the number of jobs you provide. But on a set number of hours a week. There's bound to have been a lawyer within EA with a day or two of time to create an EULA for this specifically. They won't just get someone to randomly copy / pasta a previous EULA without it having been both verified and worked over by a lawyer yet again to make sure it's relevant and doesn't contain anything added by anyone.
4. I've already replied several times regarding the copy / pasta comment. And I still see no reason to change my stance towards this - just repeating that it's copy / pasta does not change the EULA, or what it's asking of you. You have no idea what services these games do and do not use besides the limited amount that have so far been announced. Several might very well include the entire EA online platform for all you know...
And who said EULAs are DRM? Certainly not me - it is most certainly a form of rights management but not a digital one. My problems with the EULA are the rights they want you to sign away, such as your basic copyright regarding the game over to them (i.e. reviews, podcasts, long plays, tutorials, comments
) and the actual DRM specific sections of the EULA. I.e. 'you shall not attempt to circumvent the protection' this statement has no place on GoG in the first place.
A. And pray tell, on what information are you basing this - considering that not even all games have been announced yet..? That's a pretty bold statement if you ask me.
B. Unfortunatly, neither reputation nor age impresses me even slightly and I was just nitpicking with the comment as I considered it to be daft. What impresses me are sound and reasonable arguments.So yes, I would :).
1. Being a software developer doesn't make you a lawyer knowledgable in EULA writing or implementation, though.
2. Seeing as EA is based in the US and any suits/etc they brought up would be based on US law I think my knowledge/comments hold up pretty well....and i'm sorry I forgot to mention I was quoting US law and for that I apogize.
3. Some have also mentioned the fact that making new EULAs for every game would mean having to retrain their tech support people a bit and this is another reason why....
4. It actually does.....if it were a specific to this contract/games EULA just for Gog all the text would apply, whereas here it doesn't.
And no they won't...that would be DRM and Gog wouldn't include it....why? Because it's their credo pal.
....and the whole circumvent protection line isn't applicable either as the gog versions don't have any protections in them...they never have and likely never will.
A. Look at the games here and at the first EA gig titles.....all have no drm and it's gog's mission statement/credo, and I doubt they'd change it for one developer/publisher.
B. Yes but if you noticed they also have high rep which means they've been helpful and knowledgable on similar and even differing issues in the past....it's that fact and others that garner them that trust not their time spent here.
I agree with not just basing trust on someone's term at a site/etc but these guys have proven themselves over and over again hence their high reps.....this means they are very trustworthy knowledgeable to a good extent.
Oh come on, as if rep isn't a game-able system? Who was it again that went about down voting nimagraven's replies a few pages back and will no doubt do so for many more people because of a simple disagreement? Reputation is a number very closely related to popularity and spamming on the forums. Neither of which is a good gauge for anything. Other than troll-content :)
Actually only low repping can be gamed.......it's much harder to actually add rep. And most of the longtimers I mentioned don't resort to such tactics.
I'm not a distrustful person. I'm just wary of taking things at face value as in my experience it has a tendency to bite you on the ass :P.
With all due respect to Bansama and co.. Rep really means jack all to me. Rep can be earned in many ways, including being "knowledgeable" over this particular subject. I mean, hell, I've seen your rep go up and down like a yoyo. Does it matter? Does it make you any less right/wrong? It doesn't in my eyes make anyone more right or more wrong.. EULA's are dodgy to begin with, and so their appearance in some senses mean nothing.. But it's sad that something so sloppy regardless of it's reasonings for being there can actually turn into you effectively agreeing to something that may or may never turn up in the future. You won't get a chance to actually agree to it again if it does turn up though. It's sad to see that sloppyness on GOG. Regardless.
Anyway. I'm out of energy. It's late here and I'm poorly, so all that above may of not made sense. Time for me to do something else and then go to bed. I've said my bit and there's no point going in circles any more :). Life goes on! :D
Yes you are actually, and not good way but to borderline distrust/paranoia......
As for Bansama/etc it's not just rep...they have been here a long time and others will vouch for them as well(even staffers). If you still don't trust them after this then see above line one more time.
And no, if something isn't applicable they can't shoehorn it in later, especially seeing as how it'd be a tech/it nightmare for EA to do so for some of those things...and it would go against gog's credo and gog wouldn't allow it.