But what would we be circumventing here? There is no DRM in the films or the games, so explicitly mentioning it is completely pointless.

I emphasized what they mean by the program, it's a lot wider than just "the game".

I think you missed that part. We are for example circumventing the new RAR password thingie. See details in the first post.
You emphasized that wrongly. That's why GOG have TOS which explicitly covers GOG's service and data (how it's called there "GOG services or GOG content").

...You agree that GOG may terminate your log in access to the Service, including your user name and password, at any time for any reason without prior notice or liability.

They can already terminate your account any time for whatever reason IF they want to.

Is terminating someone's account over a non-piracy-related issue something you see GOG doing? Hell they're reluctant enough to ban trolls and spammers from the forums.

Sure they can, but violating TOS is worse than just a random reason for them terminating your account. Especially if it comes to legal proceedings in court.
Note, we aren't talking about what they are likely to be doing. We are talking about fixing the TOS which is not in line with their DRM-free stance. What they are actually going to be doing is another concern.

I did, but it seems like your post is wrong then. The problem here isn't the ToS or EULA, the problem here is that GOG is selling DRMed files when they've promised they wouldn't do it.

That's the issue that should be addresed, not the issue of the EULA.

The problem is in both. Password in RAR is a form of DRM which instantiates a problem which is built into TOS as a potential. To fix this, both should be removed really. I.e. there shouldn't be any actual DRM like RAR passwords, and there shouldn't be any potential for creating problems dependent on it.

And as was already mentioned, that TOS restriction has other bad aspects not even related to DRM. For example it forbids reverse engineering Galaxy protocol for writing clients like lgogdownloader.

I see your point there. I for one won't be buying any more games here as a result of them slipping DRM in. I'll consider buying again when they stop with the DRM.

And quite frankly, I'm tired of them selling us out and the claiming that the shit sandwich they're trying to serve is for our own good, even though it's a shit sandwich and it tastes like shit.

I remember when they added regional pricing, new games and multiple price points claiming that they wouldn't abandon their principles, but they have been. Each step of the way they claimed that they wouldn't go all the way. At this point, I'm not even sure I can assume that they won't spread the DRM infection beyond the current games.

Pretty curious to see what kind of legal backing you can put behind that statement.

It's the games that advertised as DRM-free and the games already have this clause since the beginning of GoG. You are six year too late.

Just to be clear about this: while I don't in any one way expect EULAs to reflect reality, I do agree with your argument in principal. It's just that I'm not worried about this change or its potential implications. For the past two decades EULAs have had more in common with Narnia than anything going on in the real world. That hasn't resulted in any snow queens or talking lions, so EULAs can stay in the closet unmolested for all I care.

You can install those games anytime you want without any possible control from GoG, exactly like before, being able to extract the file from the installer without executing first them never was a "feature" neither supported nor advertised by GoG. It's not really different than if they had decided to use a different installer than InnoSetup for which no extractor existed.

About TOS - GOG are asking for feedback actually. It's just a draft, not the final version. So it's a good opportunity to voice your concerns like this one or any other.

And I'm willing to give GOG the benefit of a doubt that this RAR password is just a badly designed solution to some problems (mentioned by Gowor) and they simply didn't realize its implications yet. Let them comment on it, which I think will happen soon (early next week probably, when the winter break is over).


Simple. In court they ask for facts, not for imaginative reasons. If they see a rule violated in the contract, they say it's the fault of the violator. If they don't see such rule, the other side will have hard time claiming any violation.

No, you are somewhat too early claiming that GOG sold themselves to the DRM cartel. I start getting an impression that you are paid by DRM proponents to defend their interests here.

It's not an enforceable change though. Anybody who has a copy can't be forced to use the newer version unless GOG offers to refund the purchase price on all the games we've bought.

At best it applies to people that buy copies after the change goes into effect. GOG may want to change their terms, but legally, and practically they can't do it because even in the US you can't change the terms of the sale after the fact without a new contract agreed to by both parties. And I doubt very much that the Europeans are going to take kindly to this sort of contractual fraud being used to deprive people of their rights.

As said in the other thread:

That DIDN'T change it, it's already in the game EULA and it always was there since day one.