EmuAce: Re pt. 1: Sorry - but unless you show your law qualifications for the country in which I currently reside this is a moot point. I see you live in the US, this might come as a shock but fortunately not everyone else in the world does. Laws differ, and I highly doubt that you have any legal qualifications, so please do not comment on the legality or enforceability of an EULA without having the required knowledge and abilities to do so.
Re pt. 2: As you seem to have problems grasping the concept of rights and giving away your rights. Let me make this as clear as possible - the EULA should only state the sections relevant to the games in question. Giving rights away, as inapplicable to this game in question they might be, is never a good idea - as they retain those rights until the agreement is cancelled.
Re pt. 3: Cheap? I don't consider signing away rights as being cheap - especially when they're excessive. But I guess morals and values differ quite a bit :). I can get a Dungeon Keeper 2 copy off of ebay pretty cheap, and without being forced into a draconic EULA which seems a lot cheaper to me. By that logic perhaps we should all start buying games from there again?
As for your comment about gog games being EULA restricted - please actually read the comments. You're signing away your rights, and to even make it both EULA and DRM specific, once again as there seems to be an issue grasping this concept.
Technical protection measures... DRM... This EULA clause has no right to exist anywhere on GoG... it is against the very spirit in which GoG was founded...
1. And you should take the same advice......unless you're a barrister and I don't know it. 0.o
Thing is, this is how the EULA works.....and even the long time members have said the same thing in here and other threads and you disregard it and spread nonsense paranoia about parts of the EULA you agree to somehow being enforceable even though they don't apply.
2. Again, if a part of an EULA is found to be unenforceable for an owned title then it doesn't apply to you and you're not giving anything up in "agreeing" to those parts.
3. I meant that the execs are being cheap and nor getting lawyers to approve and sign a new EULA for just gog released titles. Not you.
4. DRM only counts if it can stop you physically(software/internet activations/etc) from playing or installing the game if you break part of the EULA or do other things that trip the protections schemes.
So no, this isn't DRM.....
Re pt. 1: I do highly suggest you actually follow my advice - instead of spread potential misinformation about the enforceability of EULAs. Yes various sections of EULAs have been invalidated over the years in the
US. But this differs per country and EULA. Long term members also also once again, no more qualified on this matter than a register lawyer for whatever country you reside in.
Re pt. 2: Whether the EULA in part or full is enforceable will differ from country by country.
Re pt. 3: EA makes hundreds of millions a year, they'll have quite a few lawyers on retainer doing nothing but going through EULAs and various other legal matters. It has nothing to do with cost saving as those lawyers willl be on retainer... i.e. having them do one more EULA or not does not matter as the price is the same.
Re pt. 4: We now have arbitrary rules of when DRM counts or not? Why wasn't I sent the memo? :). If we use your definition then any of the EA online 'services' would count as being DRM... What do you think will happen when / if they go offline eh?
nimagraven: Apparently, our supposed resident expert has already commented on this with it's superior "legal knowledge" :).
boskee: Don't feed...
EmuAce: Technical protection measures... DRM... This EULA clause has no right to exist anywhere on GoG... it is against the very spirit in which GoG was founded...
boskee: Are there any technical protection measures tho?
It's hard to tell - the download manager will almost certainly use some forms of DRM and other protective measures. My point in this case was more that the existence of that line in the EULA at all, is against the spirit of GoG and what GoG was supposed to stand for. GoG was supposed to stand for DRM free-games. Which means this line should have never been in the EULA in the first place.
nimagraven: I gave up on you, sunshine. You disagreed me with me and I disagreed with you - circular argument by this point. You got slightly shirty about it and I gave you a taste of what I know you don't like back - don't dish it out if you can't take it back. I suggest if you really don't want my "trolling" read that much you make an effort to down vote your own posts ;).
GameRager: My posts were abrasive but not trolling...learn to recognize the difference before replying and maybe we can have a conversation.
EmuAce: Isn't that kinda what you're doing? As your pro-EULA replies definitely seem quite similar to me and without anything of value being added as the posts progress. So yes, obvious troll is obvious.
GameRager: Not trolling, and not pro-EULA......just stating facts you'd get from any other longtimer here.
Err.... long timer?
Gamerager -> "Registered: Sep 2010"
EmuAce -> "Registered: Oct 2008"
Hm.....
I might not use the forums very often, but I definitely think that 2008 precedes 2010 :).
