It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionPlease fix your user agreement to allow reverse engineering and tinkering when it's fair use, to retain your DRM free stance(206 posts)(206 posts)
(206 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 08, 2015
avatar
Brasas: You require participation by GOG legal team, etc... ;)
avatar
shmerl: Yes, since they asked for feedback on their new TOS. How are they going to digest the feedback without participation of their legal team? Unless it's like some suggested just "asking" for feedback, i.e. not really asking.
GOG asking for feedback and passing that feedback to their legal team and even improving their TOS in future =/= GOG participating in this discussion, which could legally obligate them to stuff they can't, or won't, do. I never said your feed back is stupid, you in fact have good ideas, constructive ones, etc... your expectation that you deserve a reply though, strikes me as entitlement. They are not a private individual and I can assure you are discriminated legally due to that, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. So called consumer rights distort contract law in favor of individuals, in ways that contracts between two individuals would not be distorted. Corporations are obviously very careful in costumer communication precisely because governments find it extremely easy to control them via regulations which may or not actually benefit consumers yet will always claim they do benefit. Same as well with taxation... but I'm going off topic. :)
Posted January 09, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Yes, since they asked for feedback on their new TOS. How are they going to digest the feedback without participation of their legal team? Unless it's like some suggested just "asking" for feedback, i.e. not really asking.
avatar
Brasas: GOG asking for feedback and passing that feedback to their legal team and even improving their TOS in future =/= GOG participating in this discussion,
I'm not sure where you found that legal team is expected to answer here directly. If they do - all the better, but I was answering to @Darvond that some response from GOG might take time because GOG will have to consult their legal team. Whether community managers will relay this info back and forth or legal team will participate directly is really irrelevant and I nowhere said that only the later approach should be taken by GOG.
Post edited January 09, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 23, 2015
Only glanced over the first post, so forgive me if I'm a bit off, but... It seems to me that this is more about 'hey, don't screw with our official stuff, okay?' Like, for example, the GoG Install Utility. I agree that it's kinda shady-sounding, but I don't think it's directly referring to the games. Or am I wrong/misunderstanding?
Posted January 23, 2015
avatar
FreelancerJosiah: Only glanced over the first post, so forgive me if I'm a bit off, but... It seems to me that this is more about 'hey, don't screw with our official stuff, okay?' Like, for example, the GoG Install Utility. I agree that it's kinda shady-sounding, but I don't think it's directly referring to the games. Or am I wrong/misunderstanding?
It forbids for example reverse engineering Galaxy for making community clients. Which is wrong.
Posted January 23, 2015
avatar
FreelancerJosiah: Only glanced over the first post, so forgive me if I'm a bit off, but... It seems to me that this is more about 'hey, don't screw with our official stuff, okay?' Like, for example, the GoG Install Utility. I agree that it's kinda shady-sounding, but I don't think it's directly referring to the games. Or am I wrong/misunderstanding?
First, the actual legal text doesn't restrict it to just "our official stuff". Second, the way it's phrased could make things like a Galaxy-compatible LGOGDownloader illegal.

Basically, we're complaining about a mismatch between what they seem to want and what the legalese actually says.
Posted January 23, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Not long ago you announced an upcoming update to your user policies and user agreement.

The new user agreement includes this paragraph about reverse engineering:

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.
avatar
shmerl: It's quite problematic to reconcile with your official DRM-free stance in such form. Let me explain why. For that it's necessary to clarify some historic background about DRM and surrounding legal climate.

DRM proponents (such as and the like) weren't satisfied with the mere usage of DRM, since they quite quickly realized that it's completely ineffective to prevent any piracy. They devised a legal framework around it which forbids breaking DRM, and even publishing research on how to break it. Those are called anticircumvention laws ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention]see here for the list of such laws in different countries). However they wanted much more than just preventing breaking DRM for infringing purposes. They wanted to forbid removing DRM for any legitimate purpose as well (research, interoperability, personal back ups, and other forms of fair use). I.e. they wanted indiscriminately to forbid it outright. Not that such framework prevented any piracy either - it didn't. But it gave them something else, read on.

When they attempted to present such laws to local parliaments, those initially refused since they could see that such laws are draconian and forbid legal fair use and as well can even violate common rights like free speech (when for example you publish research on breaking DRM). DRM proponents weren't deterred though. They turned to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which was much easier to manipulate since it doesn't have a proper democratic process. They managed to put anticircumvention proposals into WIPO international treaties and agreements. Once they cemented those, they turned back to local parliaments and said: "Hey, you can't ignore your international obligations! You need to pass local anticircumvention laws!". And that undemocratic and corrupt backdoor scam worked. Most parliaments around the world passed those laws (like DMCA-1201 in USA). See here for historic overview of this corrupt process and those who were involved in that scheming.

Once DRM proponents got those laws in place, they started using them for all kind of nasty stuff from censorship to preventing competition, but that's really besides the point. The main point is that those corrupt laws are in place, and efforts to repeal them (like this one) are a very hard uphill battle.

So now with understanding the current legal climate around DRM, let's go back to GOG user agreement. It forbids to "reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble <...> GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country".

Now consider for example recent addition to GOG service - password on RAR packages in the installer. It hinders Linux users or anyone who would prefer to unpack them manually for example. So community looked into it, disassembling / reverse engineering the way to calculate those passwords. All that was fair use of those who pay GOG for these games. Sounds good? Not really according to this user agreement, and even the phrase about "allowed by laws in your country" doesn't help it, since as above laws in many countries forbid even fair use DRM breaking.

I hope you can see now that such language in the user agreement is problematic in the light of your DRM-free stance because of the sickening legal climate around DRM.

Can you please look into fixing that part of the user agreement somehow. For example add there "unless it's for the purpose of fair use" or anything like that, which would nullify restrictions placed by anticircumvention laws on such kind of activity?

It's somewhat ironic that you yourself benefited from reverse engineering and tinkering with old games, running them not in originally intended way and etc. Since it allowed you to bring them to modern platforms. Forbidding that now for your paying customers when it's fair use case would be strange at least, and not in the DRM-free spirit.

________________________
* Please vote for the corresponding wishlist entry.
Please stop using the term "fair use" until you know what it means. Here's something to help get you started: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/. I will go ahead a spoil for you that it does not include at all reverse engineering or decompiling.
Posted January 23, 2015
avatar
Syme: Please stop using the term "fair use" until you know what it means. Here's something to help get you started: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/. I will go ahead a spoil for you that it does not include at all reverse engineering or decompiling.
I know what it means, thanks. Reverse engineering is fair use. You didn't research the subject however. References were already brought above but if you missed them, here is a detailed explanation: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
Post edited January 23, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 23, 2015
I read it. I still think you are abusing the term in this thread, but we'll just have to disagree.
Posted January 23, 2015
avatar
Syme: I read it. I still think you are abusing the term in this thread, but we'll just have to disagree.
You'll have to disagree not with me but with the legal system, since it clearly holds reverse engineering to be fair use (in US). There is nothing abusive about it - it's a right established in the copyright law itself.
Post edited January 23, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 25, 2015
To be honest, I believe there is a misunderstanding of what GOG's stance on DRM is. The only thing they have cared about was that the consumer can install the game as many times as they want, on as many machines as they want without having to do any sort of authentication with keys or with online servers.

It seems to me that some people expected GOG to be purely DRM-Free, meaning the codes and everything would be wide open for everyone to use, but that's just idealistic nonsense. People and corporations need to protect their code, less it's taken to be used against them. I don't see anything wrong passwords on installer packages or preventing reverse-engineering of their software. That seems like a common sense move to make.
Posted January 25, 2015
avatar
gracenote108: People and corporations need to protect their code, less it's taken to be used against them
That's not true. Security by obscurity is a false security. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
Open code is more trustworthy.

But it's not really related to the subject, I'm not sure why you bring it here. This discussion is about GOG's TOS.

avatar
gracenote108: I don't see anything wrong passwords on installer packages
That's DRM according to GOG's own definition, which is not the same as yours but the same as the common one, so that's wrong.

avatar
gracenote108: or preventing reverse-engineering of their software.
That's taking away users' rights if that's forbidden in the TOS. So that's wrong as well, unless you support services which take away users' rights, then there is nothing to discuss really.
Post edited January 25, 2015 by shmerl
Posted January 26, 2015
"DRM or Digital Rights Management is a kind of copy protection technology used by many companies to limit the usage of digital media."

Source: http://www.gog.com/support/website_help/what_is_gog_com
Posted January 27, 2015
avatar
gracenote108: "DRM or Digital Rights Management is a kind of copy protection technology used by many companies to limit the usage of digital media."

Source: http://www.gog.com/support/website_help/what_is_gog_com
And that password clearly limits the usage, it was already explained at length. Here is how GOG defined it as well:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/announcement_big_preorders_launch_day_releases_coming/post4015

DRM is explicitly a class of technologies that attempt to control the utility of a digital work after sale.
Preventing copying is only one of the limitations. DRM is not only about that.
Post edited January 27, 2015 by shmerl
Posted February 01, 2015
I do not, ever, read the gog forum.

I have way better things to do, like playing the games I purchase.... and I must admit, a LOT of them are not on GOG. In fact, I don't think I ever finished an old game bought on GOG.

Let's be honnest here, the vast majority of customer buy for the sake of nostalgia. A game we played hacked as a kid, another one where the installation CD was lost....

And I return to a more recent game, in almost anyways better than the old ones (not to say old games have not their charms, but new ones are commonly better).

For most new games GOG does not offer any advantage over the titan that is Steam... the price is the same, there are DRM on most games... and suffer lots of drawbacks : steam workshop integration is an exemple, the steam UI is another, not to mention the forums where each and every GOG customer go because they are so much more alive...

The only edge of GOG is their politic. It is why I recently bought lords of xulima on GOG and not on steam, even if it was a bit more expensive... and others : I always prefer GOG to another store at the same price or so. It is why I buy old games, fo the sake of actually OWNING them...

Let's be clear : I live in the EU and don't give a shit about a standard contract enforced by only one side of the trade agreement and that the other one is not even able to understand. The laws of my country protect me against that (on the contrary to you US guys), in fact appart for a good laugh at how it will be impossible to enforce where I live, I basically never read it. BUT it's a matter of principles.

As a developer I am sensitive to that sort of thing.... a principle of freedom : someone sells me something, I do whatever I want with it while if it's not harmfull. That is decompiling and desasembling....
As it states, CD Projekt Red had always enforce this fundamental right of property. This is why I buy here whenever I can.

I read this in searching to buy for hexen and hexen 2 (I did not find them BTW :( ). I could not say how I feel... betrayed.

I am 100% beyond the OP : GOG has build his reputation and success around this libertarian posture. I do understand the lawyers copied/paste some standard video game EULA made by EA without understand it and whatever it means in regards to the values GOG always defended. I will, however, not accept that this text will not be corrected.

I am not concerned, there can be anything in this EULA I never read, the law of my country protects me, but I want not, nor will I, accept a company who grows on publicly defending a point and legiferate angainst it at the same time...
I even understand regional pricing mind you ! And I am big looser at this game. But that... no, definitly no !
Post edited February 01, 2015 by fuinril
Posted February 04, 2015
So here is how GOG worded the new user agreement:
https://www.gog.com/support/policies/gog_user_agreement
9.1

(b) Regarding GOG content, what you can do practically (which includes to modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of it) depends on what the GOG content rights holder allows you to do (GOG can’t grant such rights), so please check this with the rights holder directly (the first thing you should do though is to check if they have a EULA and if so what it says). We also ask that you make only genuine attempts to improve the GOG content.
(c) Regarding GOG services (which includes GOG software), unless you have prior GOG permission please don’t modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works ofthem – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country. We’d like to emphasise that you are free to contact us for permission to do these things and we will review and respond to those requests in good faith. More generally, at some point in the future we want to open client protocols to make it easier for users to work with GOG data/software without any need for reverse engineering or similar techniques.
Firstly, it's good that GOG clarified the separation between GOG content which they don't own, and their own services which they own. That's very useful. Secondly however GOG still doesn't clearly allow fair use reverse engineering in the agreement in case when there can be a suspicion of anticircumvention issues. That's unfortunate. Opening the protocols in the future is a welcome step, but the above issue isn't really solved.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionPlease fix your user agreement to allow reverse engineering and tinkering when it's fair use, to retain your DRM free stance(206 posts)(206 posts)
(206 posts)