Funny thing is that I have a software suite with 4 seats worth over 70k and there wasn't a single Eula or ToS too click.
Humm so how do you only have 4 seats and not say 400.. if there is no contract... Someone, somewhere, (maybe above your pay grade) agreed to an EULA for you to get access to those seats.
There is a written contract, not a Eula. Every update there is nothing to click or sign.
Wonder why that is?
Because there is signed contract?
Important and valuable contracts are done through singing, but it doesn't change the fact that every time you step onto a local bus you enter a contract, every time you buy movie ticket you enter a contract, and every time you agree to an EULA you enter a contract.
A contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer. In most cases it's irrelevant whether that's done through signing something or a bus offering you opportunity to get on board and you accepting that offer through stepping inside.
The debate is that Someone claimed a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. I strongly disagree.
An EULA is a contract. Not all contracts are the same. A bad EULA isn't any more enforceable than any other bad contract. But a good EULA is something both parties can take to court and is explicitly clearer than a verbal agreement or stating nothing at all.
One party can claim they didn't understand it. These sorts of contracts should be easily read and understood, not abolished. They don't protect "the software developers ass" as you so eloquently put it. They protect everyone using the service. They protect the company creating and publishing the software and other users who pay for and engage those services.
Like I said in the previous post. The idea of what ANET is doing is sound. They need to ensure everyone engaging their services understands those conditions before they play and more importantly before spending money, not after. If someone doesn't like a license/service agreement then they should be able to opt out before they buy. They shouldn't have to find out they don't like the agreement and then have to return the product for a refund.
I don't disagree totally with you and I don't disagree at all with what Anet is doing.
A signed contract is much more enforceable than a Eula. A contract done with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable than a contract without legal representation.
With a Eula you have no proof that a person read, understands, or even pressed the "I Agree" button.
You can also have a verbal contract, but where would that stand on the enforceability list.
I have no doubt that a Eula is more enforceable than a verbal contract, where is it down the list after that?
Again my debate was with someone claiming that a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. Now I take it they were meaning a written and signed contract.
Just to clear up a major point.
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
and.. yes.. EULA's are binding, even digital ones.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Funny thing is that I have a software suite with 4 seats worth over 70k and there wasn't a single Eula or ToS too click.
Humm so how do you only have 4 seats and not say 400.. if there is no contract... Someone, somewhere, (maybe above your pay grade) agreed to an EULA for you to get access to those seats.
There is a written contract, not a Eula. Every update there is nothing to click or sign.
Wonder why that is?
Because there is signed contract?
Important and valuable contracts are done through singing, but it doesn't change the fact that every time you step onto a local bus you enter a contract, every time you buy movie ticket you enter a contract, and every time you agree to an EULA you enter a contract.
A contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer. In most cases it's irrelevant whether that's done through signing something or a bus offering you opportunity to get on board and you accepting that offer through stepping inside.
The debate is that Someone claimed a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. I strongly disagree.
An EULA is a contract. Not all contracts are the same. A bad EULA isn't any more enforceable than any other bad contract. But a good EULA is something both parties can take to court and is explicitly clearer than a verbal agreement or stating nothing at all.
One party can claim they didn't understand it. These sorts of contracts should be easily read and understood, not abolished. They don't protect "the software developers ass" as you so eloquently put it. They protect everyone using the service. They protect the company creating and publishing the software and other users who pay for and engage those services.
Like I said in the previous post. The idea of what ANET is doing is sound. They need to ensure everyone engaging their services understands those conditions before they play and more importantly before spending money, not after. If someone doesn't like a license/service agreement then they should be able to opt out before they buy. They shouldn't have to find out they don't like the agreement and then have to return the product for a refund.
I don't disagree totally with you and I don't disagree at all with what Anet is doing.
A signed contract is much more enforceable than a Eula. A contract done with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable than a contract without legal representation.
With a Eula you have no proof that a person read, understands, or even pressed the "I Agree" button.
You can also have a verbal contract, but where would that stand on the enforceability list.
I have no doubt that a Eula is more enforceable than a verbal contract, where is it down the list after that?
Again my debate was with someone claiming that a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. Now I take it they were meaning a written and signed contract.
Just to clear up a major point.
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
I've seen bans from other companies and other games due to things like this, and all appeals to them were denied because of ignorance. "oh we're confident in our poor anti-cheat design, you hacked our game bye"
I hate cheaters as much as the next person, but still, stuff like this makes me sick.
Even worse when there's people actually supporting it too, as evident in this thread. Might wanna educate yourself, @Ungood
Correlation does not imply causation, but that's not a valid argument here.
ArenaNet isn't banning people because of a statistical analysis of what programs cheaters have running. They are banning people because they have copy of that program and they have verified that it can be used for cheating.
No.. they were banned.. because they had the program running at the same time as GW2, for a significant amount of hours over a muiti-week time frame, not simply on their system.
So if say someone had a hack program on their system to mod their Sims3 game or Darksouls, or whatever, that was fine they had such programs, as long as they did not run the program while running GW2.
Which I think is more then fair enough.
Yes, but that's not quite what I meant.
I meant that ArenaNet does not choose those bannable programs simply because they have detected a correlation between cheating and using that program. They have additionally verified that the program can be used for cheating.
Seems logical to shut down programs that could potentially cheat while playing an online game, even if it has a lot of harmless features for single player games or just in general.
Though my main concern is thus:
Those false positives, which ANET said themselves is possible since they have no proof that they were cheating.
Public computers -- Either cafes or computers that you grant access to your kids, parents, friends, etc. They could download things and keep stuff running when you get to them (or have them set up to run instantly once starting the computer). Though playing in an internet cafe should really only be done if you have 2-fold security and change your password on your main computer when you get to it.
People who play multiple games at once. Personally, I have several MMOs open at one time -- as well as many single player games that I tend to mod quite a bit. Though these mods mainly come from steam workshop nowadays or nexus and only a couple third party tools are needed -- such as those with Stardew Valley.
They could also easily cross reference any unusual gains while they detected these programs running. Something I'm not entirely sure they have done. See if someone was just talking with people or afking in town or repeatedly doing the same motion with their accounts acquiring some noticeable advancements.
Though given that they said they had no proof, I don't think they did the above. Which seems like a half-hearted and lazy measure.
I haven't played the game more than maybe three hours in the past month or so. Probably 9 hours in the past 12 months. And I haven't any of those programs downloaded on my computer... though now I'll be a little paranoid to use mod programs or running multiple instances on games while playing ANET products. Which is a no go for me, as I won't be ruled over by fear of such and it's basically asking me to pick my favorite games versus two of theirs -- with one of those two being incredibly subpar as it is.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Funny thing is that I have a software suite with 4 seats worth over 70k and there wasn't a single Eula or ToS too click.
Humm so how do you only have 4 seats and not say 400.. if there is no contract... Someone, somewhere, (maybe above your pay grade) agreed to an EULA for you to get access to those seats.
There is a written contract, not a Eula. Every update there is nothing to click or sign.
Wonder why that is?
Because there is signed contract?
Important and valuable contracts are done through singing, but it doesn't change the fact that every time you step onto a local bus you enter a contract, every time you buy movie ticket you enter a contract, and every time you agree to an EULA you enter a contract.
A contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer. In most cases it's irrelevant whether that's done through signing something or a bus offering you opportunity to get on board and you accepting that offer through stepping inside.
The debate is that Someone claimed a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. I strongly disagree.
An EULA is a contract. Not all contracts are the same. A bad EULA isn't any more enforceable than any other bad contract. But a good EULA is something both parties can take to court and is explicitly clearer than a verbal agreement or stating nothing at all.
One party can claim they didn't understand it. These sorts of contracts should be easily read and understood, not abolished. They don't protect "the software developers ass" as you so eloquently put it. They protect everyone using the service. They protect the company creating and publishing the software and other users who pay for and engage those services.
Like I said in the previous post. The idea of what ANET is doing is sound. They need to ensure everyone engaging their services understands those conditions before they play and more importantly before spending money, not after. If someone doesn't like a license/service agreement then they should be able to opt out before they buy. They shouldn't have to find out they don't like the agreement and then have to return the product for a refund.
I don't disagree totally with you and I don't disagree at all with what Anet is doing.
A signed contract is much more enforceable than a Eula. A contract done with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable than a contract without legal representation.
With a Eula you have no proof that a person read, understands, or even pressed the "I Agree" button.
You can also have a verbal contract, but where would that stand on the enforceability list.
I have no doubt that a Eula is more enforceable than a verbal contract, where is it down the list after that?
Again my debate was with someone claiming that a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. Now I take it they were meaning a written and signed contract.
Just to clear up a major point.
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Seems logical to shut down programs that could potentially cheat while playing an online game, even if it has a lot of harmless features for single player games or just in general.
Though my main concern is thus:
Those false positives, which ANET said themselves is possible since they have no proof that they were cheating.
Public computers -- Either cafes or computers that you grant access to your kids, parents, friends, etc. They could download things and keep stuff running when you get to them (or have them set up to run instantly once starting the computer). Though playing in an internet cafe should really only be done if you have 2-fold security and change your password on your main computer when you get to it.
People who play multiple games at once. Personally, I have several MMOs open at one time -- as well as many single player games that I tend to mod quite a bit. Though these mods mainly come from steam workshop nowadays or nexus and only a couple third party tools are needed -- such as those with Stardew Valley.
They could also easily cross reference any unusual gains while they detected these programs running. Something I'm not entirely sure they have done. See if someone was just talking with people or afking in town or repeatedly doing the same motion with their accounts acquiring some noticeable advancements.
Though given that they said they had no proof, I don't think they did the above. Which seems like a half-hearted and lazy measure.
I haven't played the game more than maybe three hours in the past month or so. Probably 9 hours in the past 12 months. And I haven't any of those programs downloaded on my computer... though now I'll be a little paranoid to use mod programs or running multiple instances on games while playing ANET products. Which is a no go for me, as I won't be ruled over by fear of such and it's basically asking me to pick my favorite games versus two of theirs -- with one of those two being incredibly subpar as it is.
Anet put a list of the programs, and every single one of them was a direct program known to be able to modify/hack GW2.
As for the false positives, That is a joke, even the cheaters have fallen to the point they admit they were running the cheat programs, they admit they knew the programs where hack programs, by still are trying to justify this, by crying "But did I cheat?" mantra, which is beyond lame.
Look, if someone has hack programs they auto-run on start up, then that is how they roll, embrace that cheating way life, and deal with the outcome, but to think such a person is a legit player, is an unreasonable assumption by anyone, and with any extraordinary claim like running hack programs and yet not cheating, it's on the person making them, to prove them.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Why is it every time there's a ban wave in any game all the sudden a bunch of people show up to bash that company. Never fails either, I find it hard to agree with anyone who gets offended, YOU have a cheat program running, if your not cheating in this game then what other online game were you cheating in? Either way you were screwing up other people because your lack of skill. Don't give me the time excuse since most games aren't time intensive anymore. This cycle has been going on since eq1, nothing changes.
There are some programs that can be used to cheat in MMORPGs, but also have other, non-cheating uses. Macro software certainly fits that criterion. Even among programs that are only for cheating in games, cheating in single-player games doesn't affect anyone else and is a legitimate thing to do. So having such programs on your computer that aren't specific to a particular game may be reasonable for someone who isn't cheating in online games.
However, you have to be smart about your usage of cheat programs. If you're not cheating, don't make it look like you are. Don't have cheat programs that could allow you to cheat in online games running while you're playing those online games. That's what got people banned in Guild Wars 2, and even if they weren't using the programs to cheat at the game (which most of them probably were), they still got banned for being stupid.
ArenaNet wasn't combing through your file system looking to see if you had cheat programs installed on your computer. They checked to see if you had programs that could be used to cheat at GW2 running at the same time as GW2. And even then, the ban was only if they were running concurrently for "a significant number of hours". So even if you did cheat outright for 5 minutes, that wouldn't have gotten you banned.
1) Did they have consent to check your processes?
2) Do you know for sure that all of the programs they checked for can actually be used to cheat in GW2?
To answer this Question:
1) YES. When you Sign the EULA/TOS, they say clearly, in bold and ALL CAPS, that they reserve the right to monitor your system, at their discretion, for anything pertaining to their product or service. TOS/EULA are classified as ClickWrap, and count as a legally binding contracts.
2) YES. Every program they were looking for, and listed as a Hack or Cheat program can modify their game system enough to count as cheating, botting, and hacking, they also ensure that you had to have one or more of the programs actively running for an extended amount of hours over a multi-week time frame to be receive a ban for cheating, not just simply in a file somewhere on your system, or a one time fluke.
1. TOS/EULA are definitely not legally binding contracts in all countries. In some countries you have to actually sign a contract. Just clicking something is not enough.
2. How do you know this? Or are you just assuming this? Do you have a link? (genuinely curious about this)
1) I got into a wonderful discussion about this very subject on the legality of an EULA on these very forums, and make no mistake, in this digital age, the EULA that game companies make you sign, are very enforceable in all industrialized nations.
You are partially correct. But in EU for example a EULA cannot undermine any rights granted to you by EU law. So there is that.
So a EULA is enforceable, if it is legal. You cannot just make up any rules in your EULA.
Edit: The important bit is that a EULA cannot let you sign away you rights stated by law.
Fairly certain you'll be hard pressed to find any laws regarding your "right" to use cheat software and tools.
Agreed.
But once the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) goes into effect in the EU, there are going to be a very strong privacy policy in place. On the bright side it actually has explicit rules for how you CAN agree to waive your rights, provided that the agreement text is explicit about what data is used for and is humanly readable, which of course precludes most EULA's as they tend to wander into obscure wording and cloudy scope.
I've read some of the GDPR and its overall theme is to protect data which can be used to personally identify someone.
It does not appear to protect all data a person has, say such as hash tags of cheat programs running on in their computer memory.
If you can find a reference otherwise I'd like to see it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
and.. yes.. EULA's are binding, even digital ones.
Don't forget Browsewrap vs Clickwrap
Not all EULA's are able to hold up. Simply pointing and saying EULA does not mean much. If an EULA said you were agreeing that they could come take your second born child, it wouldn't allow them to come take the child.
THAT said, if these assholes were hacking/cheating then they deserve worse than a ban.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Funny thing is that I have a software suite with 4 seats worth over 70k and there wasn't a single Eula or ToS too click.
Humm so how do you only have 4 seats and not say 400.. if there is no contract... Someone, somewhere, (maybe above your pay grade) agreed to an EULA for you to get access to those seats.
There is a written contract, not a Eula. Every update there is nothing to click or sign.
Wonder why that is?
Umm real life clue.. Written or Digital, it's still an EULA.
lol
Sorry their bud.
What I signed was an agreement between two companies. Not a dictation from one.
Funny thing is that I have a software suite with 4 seats worth over 70k and there wasn't a single Eula or ToS too click.
Humm so how do you only have 4 seats and not say 400.. if there is no contract... Someone, somewhere, (maybe above your pay grade) agreed to an EULA for you to get access to those seats.
There is a written contract, not a Eula. Every update there is nothing to click or sign.
Wonder why that is?
Because there is signed contract?
Important and valuable contracts are done through singing, but it doesn't change the fact that every time you step onto a local bus you enter a contract, every time you buy movie ticket you enter a contract, and every time you agree to an EULA you enter a contract.
A contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer. In most cases it's irrelevant whether that's done through signing something or a bus offering you opportunity to get on board and you accepting that offer through stepping inside.
The debate is that Someone claimed a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. I strongly disagree.
An EULA is a contract. Not all contracts are the same. A bad EULA isn't any more enforceable than any other bad contract. But a good EULA is something both parties can take to court and is explicitly clearer than a verbal agreement or stating nothing at all.
One party can claim they didn't understand it. These sorts of contracts should be easily read and understood, not abolished. They don't protect "the software developers ass" as you so eloquently put it. They protect everyone using the service. They protect the company creating and publishing the software and other users who pay for and engage those services.
Like I said in the previous post. The idea of what ANET is doing is sound. They need to ensure everyone engaging their services understands those conditions before they play and more importantly before spending money, not after. If someone doesn't like a license/service agreement then they should be able to opt out before they buy. They shouldn't have to find out they don't like the agreement and then have to return the product for a refund.
I don't disagree totally with you and I don't disagree at all with what Anet is doing.
A signed contract is much more enforceable than a Eula. A contract done with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable than a contract without legal representation.
With a Eula you have no proof that a person read, understands, or even pressed the "I Agree" button.
You can also have a verbal contract, but where would that stand on the enforceability list.
I have no doubt that a Eula is more enforceable than a verbal contract, where is it down the list after that?
Again my debate was with someone claiming that a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. Now I take it they were meaning a written and signed contract.
Just to clear up a major point.
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
I understand the current situation, likely more than most being that I do nothing but work with contracts all day.
The good news is, recent events seem to be leading to an effort to ensure these agreements are clearly laid out and concise so the average consumer can actually understand what they're agreeing to. Additionally, it's becoming even more clear that just because it exists in a currently accepted EULA, it doesn't mean that the situation won't change, effectively making existing EULAs invalid. Those are all good things for consumers so long as the trend maintains to clarify the agreements so all parties are well aware and understand before agreeing.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
I understand the current situation, likely more than most being that I do nothing but work with contracts all day.
The good news is, recent events seem to be leading to an effort to ensure these agreements are clearly laid out and concise so the average consumer can actually understand what they're agreeing to. Additionally, it's becoming even more clear that just because it exists in a currently accepted EULA, it doesn't mean that the situation won't change, effectively making existing EULAs invalid. Those are all good things for consumers so long as the trend maintains to clarify the agreements so all parties are well aware and understand before agreeing.
Well, yes.. but Arena Net, put the part of reserving the right to monitor your system in ALL CAPS, full size font, right in the main body of the contract, they could not have laid it out more clear if they tried.
People getting pissy about it, know they have no legal grounds, and there is nothing they can do directly, they were cheaters, and because like every little brat, they are upset they are getting a time out, so started a smear campaign.
Anyone dumb enough to fall for it.. I hope your next game gives you all the freedom you think you want.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
I understand the current situation, likely more than most being that I do nothing but work with contracts all day.
The good news is, recent events seem to be leading to an effort to ensure these agreements are clearly laid out and concise so the average consumer can actually understand what they're agreeing to. Additionally, it's becoming even more clear that just because it exists in a currently accepted EULA, it doesn't mean that the situation won't change, effectively making existing EULAs invalid. Those are all good things for consumers so long as the trend maintains to clarify the agreements so all parties are well aware and understand before agreeing.
Well, yes.. but Arena Net, put the part of reserving the right to monitor your system in ALL CAPS, full size font, right in the main body of the contract, they could not have laid it out more clear if they tried.
People getting pissy about it, know they have no legal grounds, and there is nothing they can do directly, they were cheaters, and because like every little brat, they are upset they are getting a time out, so started a smear campaign.
Anyone dumb enough to fall for it.. I hope your next game gives you all the freedom you think you want.
I was speaking on the topic of EULAs, not a smear campaign. I would hope that clarity in the agreements would only serve to discourage folks from attempting this kind of cheating. Is there a downside there?
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
If you really think they aren't, then you are the one who is clueless.
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Unlike browsewrap agreements, courts have routinely upheld clickwrap agreements.30 The enforceability of these agreements turns not on the label of “clickwrap,” but rather whether the party had constructive notice of the terms of the agreement and thus agreed to be bound by them.31
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Funny thing is that I have a software suite with 4 seats worth over 70k and there wasn't a single Eula or ToS too click.
Humm so how do you only have 4 seats and not say 400.. if there is no contract... Someone, somewhere, (maybe above your pay grade) agreed to an EULA for you to get access to those seats.
There is a written contract, not a Eula. Every update there is nothing to click or sign.
Wonder why that is?
Because there is signed contract?
Important and valuable contracts are done through singing, but it doesn't change the fact that every time you step onto a local bus you enter a contract, every time you buy movie ticket you enter a contract, and every time you agree to an EULA you enter a contract.
A contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer. In most cases it's irrelevant whether that's done through signing something or a bus offering you opportunity to get on board and you accepting that offer through stepping inside.
The debate is that Someone claimed a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. I strongly disagree.
An EULA is a contract. Not all contracts are the same. A bad EULA isn't any more enforceable than any other bad contract. But a good EULA is something both parties can take to court and is explicitly clearer than a verbal agreement or stating nothing at all.
One party can claim they didn't understand it. These sorts of contracts should be easily read and understood, not abolished. They don't protect "the software developers ass" as you so eloquently put it. They protect everyone using the service. They protect the company creating and publishing the software and other users who pay for and engage those services.
Like I said in the previous post. The idea of what ANET is doing is sound. They need to ensure everyone engaging their services understands those conditions before they play and more importantly before spending money, not after. If someone doesn't like a license/service agreement then they should be able to opt out before they buy. They shouldn't have to find out they don't like the agreement and then have to return the product for a refund.
I don't disagree totally with you and I don't disagree at all with what Anet is doing.
A signed contract is much more enforceable than a Eula. A contract done with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable than a contract without legal representation.
With a Eula you have no proof that a person read, understands, or even pressed the "I Agree" button.
You can also have a verbal contract, but where would that stand on the enforceability list.
I have no doubt that a Eula is more enforceable than a verbal contract, where is it down the list after that?
Again my debate was with someone claiming that a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. Now I take it they were meaning a written and signed contract.
Just to clear up a major point.
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
You should consider quitting while you are behind, before he totally buries you.
Yes, ANET could chose to cancel your account for letting your grandson access your account. In order for him to do so you must legally be permitted to (i.e. be his legal guardian), he must be 13 to 17 yrs old, and....here's the real kicker, if he is permitted to do so, you may no longer do so, it becomes his account.
Its all in their EULA, here is just an excerpt and you probably should read the rest of the provisos which follow
By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9(c) below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.
Each Account may only be used by one person. If a minor has been allowed access to an Account under Section 9(c) below, only that minor may use the Account thereafter.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Important and valuable contracts are done through singing, but it doesn't change the fact that every time you step onto a local bus you enter a contract, every time you buy movie ticket you enter a contract, and every time you agree to an EULA you enter a contract.
A contract requires an offer and acceptance of that offer. In most cases it's irrelevant whether that's done through signing something or a bus offering you opportunity to get on board and you accepting that offer through stepping inside.
The debate is that Someone claimed a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. I strongly disagree.
An EULA is a contract. Not all contracts are the same. A bad EULA isn't any more enforceable than any other bad contract. But a good EULA is something both parties can take to court and is explicitly clearer than a verbal agreement or stating nothing at all.
One party can claim they didn't understand it. These sorts of contracts should be easily read and understood, not abolished. They don't protect "the software developers ass" as you so eloquently put it. They protect everyone using the service. They protect the company creating and publishing the software and other users who pay for and engage those services.
Like I said in the previous post. The idea of what ANET is doing is sound. They need to ensure everyone engaging their services understands those conditions before they play and more importantly before spending money, not after. If someone doesn't like a license/service agreement then they should be able to opt out before they buy. They shouldn't have to find out they don't like the agreement and then have to return the product for a refund.
I don't disagree totally with you and I don't disagree at all with what Anet is doing.
A signed contract is much more enforceable than a Eula. A contract done with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable than a contract without legal representation.
With a Eula you have no proof that a person read, understands, or even pressed the "I Agree" button.
You can also have a verbal contract, but where would that stand on the enforceability list.
I have no doubt that a Eula is more enforceable than a verbal contract, where is it down the list after that?
Again my debate was with someone claiming that a Eula is just as enforceable as a contract. Now I take it they were meaning a written and signed contract.
Just to clear up a major point.
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
That doesn't absolve the company of all obligation to verify identification of customers, specifically when contracts are being updated.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
You should consider quitting while you are behind, before he totally buries you.
Yes, ANET could chose to cancel your account for letting your grandson access your account. In order for him to do so you must legally be permitted to (i.e. be his legal guardian), he must be 13 to 17 yrs old, and....here's the real kicker, if he is permitted to do so, you may no longer do so, it becomes his account.
Its all in their EULA, here is just an excerpt and you probably should read the rest of the provisos which follow
By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9(c) below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.
Each Account may only be used by one person. If a minor has been allowed access to an Account under Section 9(c) below, only that minor may use the Account thereafter.
" YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE."
If Anet cancelled my account because I let my grandson play I'd laugh and find it hilarious that a company could be so petty. I'd bet that in Anet's reasonable discretion they wouldn't. I never implied they couldn't.
I'd bet that thousands and thousands of underage teenagers have purchased, clicked I agree and broken the Eula. The only reason it says 18 is because if your any younger you can't be held to any contract and I'm bet that Anet wouldn't ever want to.
Minors (those under the age of 18, in most states) lack the capacity to make a contract. So a minor who signs a contract can either honor the deal or void the contract. There are a few exceptions, however. For example, in most states, a minor cannot void a contract for necessities like food, clothing, and lodging. Also, a minor can void a contract for lack of capacity only while still under the age of majority. In most states, if a minor turns 18 and hasn't done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided."
My debate with Mr Ungood is whether digital clickwrap Eula's are as enforceable ie: carrie as much clout as a written, hand signed contract. Not whether Anet is going to shut me down because I let my grandson play.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
If you really think they aren't, then you are the one who is clueless.
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Unlike browsewrap agreements, courts have routinely upheld clickwrap agreements.30 The enforceability of these agreements turns not on the label of “clickwrap,” but rather whether the party had constructive notice of the terms of the agreement and thus agreed to be bound by them.31
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
This debate between us is not about the validity of a Eula or Digital Clickwrap contract. I'm not arguing that these things are invalid.
A written, hand signed contract is more enforceable and carries more clout than a digital clickwrap contract.
A written hand signed contract with witness's is more enforceable and carries more clout than a written and hand signed contract.
A written and hand signed contract with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable and carries more clout than a hand signed contract with witnesses.
If you don't get this, well I really don't know what to say except that I'll agree to disagree.
I'd bet that thousands and thousands of underage teenagers have purchased, clicked I agree and broken the Eula. The only reason it says 18 is because if your any younger you can't be held to any contract and I'm bet that Anet wouldn't ever want to.
Minors (those under the age of 18, in most states) lack the capacity to make a contract. So a minor who signs a contract can either honor the deal or void the contract. There are a few exceptions, however. For example, in most states, a minor cannot void a contract for necessities like food, clothing, and lodging. Also, a minor can void a contract for lack of capacity only while still under the age of majority. In most states, if a minor turns 18 and hasn't done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided."
My debate with Mr Ungood is whether digital clickwrap Eula's are as enforceable ie: carrie as much clout as a written, hand signed contract. Not whether Anet is going to shut me down because I let my grandson play.
Your free to agree with him if your so inclined.
That applies for USA, and likely also for other common law countries.
In EU, at least in some of EU countries, a minor can enter a contract that is ordinary and of small value considering the age of the minor. An older child (eg. high school age) could probably agree to an EULA like Guild Wars 2, while a small child could not.
Additionally a minor is able to control money earned through his own work, so a purchase of Guild Wars 2 could become binding if the minor has paid it in full with money earned through his own work.
There are some programs that can be used to cheat in MMORPGs, but also have other, non-cheating uses. Macro software certainly fits that criterion. Even among programs that are only for cheating in games, cheating in single-player games doesn't affect anyone else and is a legitimate thing to do. So having such programs on your computer that aren't specific to a particular game may be reasonable for someone who isn't cheating in online games.
However, you have to be smart about your usage of cheat programs. If you're not cheating, don't make it look like you are. Don't have cheat programs that could allow you to cheat in online games running while you're playing those online games. That's what got people banned in Guild Wars 2, and even if they weren't using the programs to cheat at the game (which most of them probably were), they still got banned for being stupid.
ArenaNet wasn't combing through your file system looking to see if you had cheat programs installed on your computer. They checked to see if you had programs that could be used to cheat at GW2 running at the same time as GW2. And even then, the ban was only if they were running concurrently for "a significant number of hours". So even if you did cheat outright for 5 minutes, that wouldn't have gotten you banned.
1) Did they have consent to check your processes?
2) Do you know for sure that all of the programs they checked for can actually be used to cheat in GW2?
To answer this Question:
1) YES. When you Sign the EULA/TOS, they say clearly, in bold and ALL CAPS, that they reserve the right to monitor your system, at their discretion, for anything pertaining to their product or service. TOS/EULA are classified as ClickWrap, and count as a legally binding contracts.
2) YES. Every program they were looking for, and listed as a Hack or Cheat program can modify their game system enough to count as cheating, botting, and hacking, they also ensure that you had to have one or more of the programs actively running for an extended amount of hours over a multi-week time frame to be receive a ban for cheating, not just simply in a file somewhere on your system, or a one time fluke.
1. TOS/EULA are definitely not legally binding contracts in all countries. In some countries you have to actually sign a contract. Just clicking something is not enough.
2. How do you know this? Or are you just assuming this? Do you have a link? (genuinely curious about this)
1) I got into a wonderful discussion about this very subject on the legality of an EULA on these very forums, and make no mistake, in this digital age, the EULA that game companies make you sign, are very enforceable in all industrialized nations.
2) Anet posted a list of the programs, all of which are known hack programs, and on their Reddit and official forums, people went from "I'm not cheating, it was just TacO" to "Well, you can't prove I was using them to cheat" to "Well I'm upset that you caught me so I am going to cry about you spying on me"
1. Not true at all. Definitely not in several western European countries.
The problem here is you buy a game and not until you install it, you click something. Which is not a legal contract in those countries and definitely not after an update that comes with an updated EULA. That a company calls their product a 'service' does not change this. It is seen as changing the requirements for purchase after the purchase already has been done. Not to mention that to elevate it to a contract, it has to be signed. Clicking a button is not valid for this.
You are confusing Broswer-Wrap with Click-Wrap, like I said, it was a long discussion, that ends with EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract.
Maybe if you automatically assume that the customer and company are in the same country with the same laws.
Many laws considering customer rights and privacy are very different between countries (especially between US company and EU citizen), making a lot of EULA's not enforceable to begin with.
What makes it more complicated is that how the EULA is presented and 'signed'. There is no way of telling that the customer actually understood or even read the EULA. This scenario is treated differently in different countries and is under review in some countries.
Any change to the EULA after purchase is a one sided dictation of changes. When doing this with a once paid for product (a license is a product too), it can lead to the right of a refund. Now is this a situation that is still new for digital products and for some countries it leads to an unsure legal issue because of lack of precedents. But you can expect that this will change, because with any other product, the moment EULA gets changed after purchase, the customer has the right to end agreement and stop payment directly (and/or ask for refund in the case of advance payment). Where I live anyway.
Simple expamples , any case of Facebook, Google or Microsoft being fined or forced to change their privacy options for customers. The customers all clicked an EULA, but those were simply not legal/fair after review. This could happen to many games' EULA too, but this needs some precedents first.
There are some programs that can be used to cheat in MMORPGs, but also have other, non-cheating uses. Macro software certainly fits that criterion. Even among programs that are only for cheating in games, cheating in single-player games doesn't affect anyone else and is a legitimate thing to do. So having such programs on your computer that aren't specific to a particular game may be reasonable for someone who isn't cheating in online games.
However, you have to be smart about your usage of cheat programs. If you're not cheating, don't make it look like you are. Don't have cheat programs that could allow you to cheat in online games running while you're playing those online games. That's what got people banned in Guild Wars 2, and even if they weren't using the programs to cheat at the game (which most of them probably were), they still got banned for being stupid.
ArenaNet wasn't combing through your file system looking to see if you had cheat programs installed on your computer. They checked to see if you had programs that could be used to cheat at GW2 running at the same time as GW2. And even then, the ban was only if they were running concurrently for "a significant number of hours". So even if you did cheat outright for 5 minutes, that wouldn't have gotten you banned.
1) Did they have consent to check your processes?
2) Do you know for sure that all of the programs they checked for can actually be used to cheat in GW2?
To answer this Question:
1) YES. When you Sign the EULA/TOS, they say clearly, in bold and ALL CAPS, that they reserve the right to monitor your system, at their discretion, for anything pertaining to their product or service. TOS/EULA are classified as ClickWrap, and count as a legally binding contracts.
2) YES. Every program they were looking for, and listed as a Hack or Cheat program can modify their game system enough to count as cheating, botting, and hacking, they also ensure that you had to have one or more of the programs actively running for an extended amount of hours over a multi-week time frame to be receive a ban for cheating, not just simply in a file somewhere on your system, or a one time fluke.
1. TOS/EULA are definitely not legally binding contracts in all countries. In some countries you have to actually sign a contract. Just clicking something is not enough.
2. How do you know this? Or are you just assuming this? Do you have a link? (genuinely curious about this)
1) I got into a wonderful discussion about this very subject on the legality of an EULA on these very forums, and make no mistake, in this digital age, the EULA that game companies make you sign, are very enforceable in all industrialized nations.
2) Anet posted a list of the programs, all of which are known hack programs, and on their Reddit and official forums, people went from "I'm not cheating, it was just TacO" to "Well, you can't prove I was using them to cheat" to "Well I'm upset that you caught me so I am going to cry about you spying on me"
1. Not true at all. Definitely not in several western European countries.
The problem here is you buy a game and not until you install it, you click something. Which is not a legal contract in those countries and definitely not after an update that comes with an updated EULA. That a company calls their product a 'service' does not change this. It is seen as changing the requirements for purchase after the purchase already has been done. Not to mention that to elevate it to a contract, it has to be signed. Clicking a button is not valid for this.
You are confusing Broswer-Wrap with Click-Wrap, like I said, it was a long discussion, that ends with EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract.
Maybe if you automatically assume that the customer and company are in the same country with the same laws.
Many laws considering customer rights and privacy are very different between countries (especially between US company and EU citizen), making a lot of EULA's not enforceable to begin with.
What makes it more complicated is that how the EULA is presented and 'signed'. There is no way of telling that the customer actually understood or even read the EULA. This scenario is treated differently in different countries and is under review in some countries.
Any change to the EULA after purchase is a one sided dictation of changes. When doing this with a once paid for product (a license is a product too), it can lead to the right of a refund. Now is this a situation that is still new for digital products and for some countries it leads to an unsure legal issue because of lack of precedents. But you can expect that this will change, because with any other product, the moment EULA gets changed after purchase, the customer has the right to end agreement and stop payment directly (and/or ask for refund in the case of advance payment). Where I live anyway.
Simple expamples , any case of Facebook, Google or Microsoft being fined or forced to change their privacy options for customers. The customers all clicked an EULA, but those were simply not legal/fair after review. This could happen to many games' EULA too, but this needs some precedents first.
The real issue is EULAs contain agreements for issues near and dear to everyones hearts, like personal identity, and stuff not so important, like who can use an account.
I noticed ANET carefully avoids one area that in the EU courts sided with consumers, the right to trade or sell the physical media (which no longer exists these days on PCs.)
Even though you can sell the media, they retain the account and license which you can't sell. I'm not yet aware of a court ruling that says you own these accounts, though some courts uphold a customers right to a refund if they are cancelled or shut down.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
If you really think they aren't, then you are the one who is clueless.
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Unlike browsewrap agreements, courts have routinely upheld clickwrap agreements.30 The enforceability of these agreements turns not on the label of “clickwrap,” but rather whether the party had constructive notice of the terms of the agreement and thus agreed to be bound by them.31
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
This debate between us is not about the validity of a Eula or Digital Clickwrap contract. I'm not arguing that these things are invalid.
A written, hand signed contract is more enforceable and carries more clout than a digital clickwrap contract.
A written hand signed contract with witness's is more enforceable and carries more clout than a written and hand signed contract.
A written and hand signed contract with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable and carries more clout than a hand signed contract with witnesses.
If you don't get this, well I really don't know what to say except that I'll agree to disagree.
Buhahahahahahaha
If it's legal, it's legal. That is all that matters.
Hand Signed, with a Lawyer present, you still can't sign away any rights protected under the consumer protection act, or require anyone to do something illegal.
If you think having a signature on the document vs having digitally clicked "accept" some how means the EULA is more or less enforceable, you are the one that has not been paying attention, you might want to read the links I provided.
Digital EULA's are a legally binding contract, on the same level as a signature.
As such, you can be taken to court and the courts no longer question if you are accountable as having agreed to them, to the same extent of the law that a signed paper contract is, and all of them.. your ONLY recourse is to find a loop hole within the contract itself. Under No chance will you able to say "I didn't agree to that"
If you don't get that.. well.. You're gonna have a bad time in the digital age, like the cheaters that just discovered that.. Yes.. what Anet did was legal, and the contract is binding, and beyond having a pissy pity party about it, there is not a damn thing they can do, just like if they signed the contract in blood.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
Given it is against the law to impersonate someone, if anyone other then the creator of the account clicked the "I agree" button (which they can track), they can all be arrested.
Fun aspects of legality.
No You don't Own it.
and.. yes.. EULA's are binding, even digital ones.
I meant that ArenaNet does not choose those bannable programs simply because they have detected a correlation between cheating and using that program. They have additionally verified that the program can be used for cheating.
Which makes DAOWAce's argument invalid.
Though my main concern is thus:
Those false positives, which ANET said themselves is possible since they have no proof that they were cheating.
Public computers -- Either cafes or computers that you grant access to your kids, parents, friends, etc. They could download things and keep stuff running when you get to them (or have them set up to run instantly once starting the computer). Though playing in an internet cafe should really only be done if you have 2-fold security and change your password on your main computer when you get to it.
People who play multiple games at once. Personally, I have several MMOs open at one time -- as well as many single player games that I tend to mod quite a bit. Though these mods mainly come from steam workshop nowadays or nexus and only a couple third party tools are needed -- such as those with Stardew Valley.
They could also easily cross reference any unusual gains while they detected these programs running. Something I'm not entirely sure they have done. See if someone was just talking with people or afking in town or repeatedly doing the same motion with their accounts acquiring some noticeable advancements.
Though given that they said they had no proof, I don't think they did the above. Which seems like a half-hearted and lazy measure.
I haven't played the game more than maybe three hours in the past month or so. Probably 9 hours in the past 12 months. And I haven't any of those programs downloaded on my computer... though now I'll be a little paranoid to use mod programs or running multiple instances on games while playing ANET products. Which is a no go for me, as I won't be ruled over by fear of such and it's basically asking me to pick my favorite games versus two of theirs -- with one of those two being incredibly subpar as it is.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
As for the false positives, That is a joke, even the cheaters have fallen to the point they admit they were running the cheat programs, they admit they knew the programs where hack programs, by still are trying to justify this, by crying "But did I cheat?" mantra, which is beyond lame.
Look, if someone has hack programs they auto-run on start up, then that is how they roll, embrace that cheating way life, and deal with the outcome, but to think such a person is a legit player, is an unreasonable assumption by anyone, and with any extraordinary claim like running hack programs and yet not cheating, it's on the person making them, to prove them.
It does not appear to protect all data a person has, say such as hash tags of cheat programs running on in their computer memory.
If you can find a reference otherwise I'd like to see it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not all EULA's are able to hold up. Simply pointing and saying EULA does not mean much. If an EULA said you were agreeing that they could come take your second born child, it wouldn't allow them to come take the child.
THAT said, if these assholes were hacking/cheating then they deserve worse than a ban.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Sorry their bud.
What I signed was an agreement between two companies. Not a dictation from one.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The good news is, recent events seem to be leading to an effort to ensure these agreements are clearly laid out and concise so the average consumer can actually understand what they're agreeing to. Additionally, it's becoming even more clear that just because it exists in a currently accepted EULA, it doesn't mean that the situation won't change, effectively making existing EULAs invalid. Those are all good things for consumers so long as the trend maintains to clarify the agreements so all parties are well aware and understand before agreeing.
People getting pissy about it, know they have no legal grounds, and there is nothing they can do directly, they were cheaters, and because like every little brat, they are upset they are getting a time out, so started a smear campaign.
Anyone dumb enough to fall for it.. I hope your next game gives you all the freedom you think you want.
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/472992/so-apparently-anet-is-being-extremely-shady/p5#c33t93GlJ8zbfpBj.99
Pretty simple to see who's clueless
I'm not fussing, I'm laughing
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Figured you would like some more Info.
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
Yes, ANET could chose to cancel your account for letting your grandson access your account.
In order for him to do so you must legally be permitted to (i.e. be his legal guardian), he must be 13 to 17 yrs old, and....here's the real kicker, if he is permitted to do so, you may no longer do so, it becomes his account.
Its all in their EULA, here is just an excerpt and you probably should read the rest of the provisos which follow
- By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9(c) below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.
- Each Account may only be used by one person. If a minor has been allowed access to an Account under Section 9(c) below, only that minor may use the Account thereafter.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-user-agreement/"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If Anet cancelled my account because I let my grandson play I'd laugh and find it hilarious that a company could be so petty. I'd bet that in Anet's reasonable discretion they wouldn't. I never implied they couldn't.
I'd bet that thousands and thousands of underage teenagers have purchased, clicked I agree and broken the Eula. The only reason it says 18 is because if your any younger you can't be held to any contract and I'm bet that Anet wouldn't ever want to.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html
"Minors Have No Capacity to Contract
Minors (those under the age of 18, in most states) lack the capacity to make a contract. So a minor who signs a contract can either honor the deal or void the contract. There are a few exceptions, however. For example, in most states, a minor cannot void a contract for necessities like food, clothing, and lodging. Also, a minor can void a contract for lack of capacity only while still under the age of majority. In most states, if a minor turns 18 and hasn't done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided."
My debate with Mr Ungood is whether digital clickwrap Eula's are as enforceable ie: carrie as much clout as a written, hand signed contract. Not whether Anet is going to shut me down because I let my grandson play.
Your free to agree with him if your so inclined.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
A written, hand signed contract is more enforceable and carries more clout than a digital clickwrap contract.
A written hand signed contract with witness's is more enforceable and carries more clout than a written and hand signed contract.
A written and hand signed contract with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable and carries more clout than a hand signed contract with witnesses.
If you don't get this, well I really don't know what to say except that I'll agree to disagree.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
In EU, at least in some of EU countries, a minor can enter a contract that is ordinary and of small value considering the age of the minor. An older child (eg. high school age) could probably agree to an EULA like Guild Wars 2, while a small child could not.
Additionally a minor is able to control money earned through his own work, so a purchase of Guild Wars 2 could become binding if the minor has paid it in full with money earned through his own work.
Many laws considering customer rights and privacy are very different between countries (especially between US company and EU citizen), making a lot of EULA's not enforceable to begin with.
What makes it more complicated is that how the EULA is presented and 'signed'. There is no way of telling that the customer actually understood or even read the EULA. This scenario is treated differently in different countries and is under review in some countries.
Any change to the EULA after purchase is a one sided dictation of changes. When doing this with a once paid for product (a license is a product too), it can lead to the right of a refund. Now is this a situation that is still new for digital products and for some countries it leads to an unsure legal issue because of lack of precedents. But you can expect that this will change, because with any other product, the moment EULA gets changed after purchase, the customer has the right to end agreement and stop payment directly (and/or ask for refund in the case of advance payment). Where I live anyway.
Simple expamples , any case of Facebook, Google or Microsoft being fined or forced to change their privacy options for customers. The customers all clicked an EULA, but those were simply not legal/fair after review. This could happen to many games' EULA too, but this needs some precedents first.
I noticed ANET carefully avoids one area that in the EU courts sided with consumers, the right to trade or sell the physical media (which no longer exists these days on PCs.)
Even though you can sell the media, they retain the account and license which you can't sell. I'm not yet aware of a court ruling that says you own these accounts, though some courts uphold a customers right to a refund if they are cancelled or shut down.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If it's legal, it's legal. That is all that matters.
Hand Signed, with a Lawyer present, you still can't sign away any rights protected under the consumer protection act, or require anyone to do something illegal.
If you think having a signature on the document vs having digitally clicked "accept" some how means the EULA is more or less enforceable, you are the one that has not been paying attention, you might want to read the links I provided.
Digital EULA's are a legally binding contract, on the same level as a signature.
As such, you can be taken to court and the courts no longer question if you are accountable as having agreed to them, to the same extent of the law that a signed paper contract is, and all of them.. your ONLY recourse is to find a loop hole within the contract itself. Under No chance will you able to say "I didn't agree to that"
If you don't get that.. well.. You're gonna have a bad time in the digital age, like the cheaters that just discovered that.. Yes.. what Anet did was legal, and the contract is binding, and beyond having a pissy pity party about it, there is not a damn thing they can do, just like if they signed the contract in blood.