The NGE wasn't immoral? So when I asked if they were revamping the game as I wanted to know before making a one year subscription and the company policy was to lie and say no when they knew it would be changed that was not an immoral act? Then when they announced shortly after I'd purchased a one year sub and the new expansion that in 2 weeks the game was changing and that 90% of the expansion was null and void and there would be no refunds that wasn't an immoral act? When SOE were making promises to professions such as creature handler in order to keep subscribers while at the same time they knew it wouldn't happen and in less than one month that profession would be wiped from the game, that wasn't an immoral act?

Gary Whiting not paying his staff for months causing people to lose houses and children to go without medical coverage whilst all the time pumping money from investors into a pyramid scheme was not an immoral act? Luring desperate people into a pyramid scheme that is based off profits from a non existant product (SGW) is not an immoral act?

Well I guess we all have different moral values but in my opinion lying and using lies to acquire money under false pretences (stealing in short) are immoral acts in my opinion. Wether conducted by a common street thug or a legit businessman (which Gary Whiting isn't and John Smedley barely is), they are still acts of immorality in my opinion.

I don't deny the company has rights to change the game as in the NGE, but SOE actively lied about it whilst taking cash and refused to give refunds despite selling a product under false pretences. They did eventually refund ToOW expansions but only after threatened with court action. As for Whiting he's pretending to make a game in order to keep a pyramid scheme going, please tell you find that immoral!

Agricola,

There is a WORLD of difference between what's happening with CME and what has been described as going down with SOE. What went down with SOE was that they changed the format of their product.... there is nothing immoral about that.  Subscription based services tend to PUBLISH the fact that may happen right in the EULA's they make thier subscribers sign in order to play.  If the subscriber doesn't read and believe that....then they really only have themselves to blame.  Note, that it is USUALY possible to get ahold of an EULA for a product BEFORE you plunk down any money for it (even the origional box purchase)... though some companies don't make it very straightforward as to how you go about doing so (and THAT is an issue). It's also VERY WELL KNOWN to anyone that has any experience with MMO's that changes (large and small) to game mechanics happen all the time in that medium.... so no reasonable person can legitimately claim that they went into purchasing a multi-month subscription without the knowledge that there was a risk that the game mechanics might change in a way that might wreck thier enjoyment of the product.

What you USUALY get with a multi-month subscription is a discount of the monthly rate....along occasionaly with some other perks. What the company gets is improved cash flow (money now rather then later) and a somewhat more predictable revenue stream due to lock in. It is and always has been a gamble for the subscriber whether they'll get thier money out of that option... and no one who isn't comfortable with that risk should pursue it.

I didn't read any of the SOE boards.... but in general, game developers refrain from making solid commitments when communicating with the public FOR VERY GOOD REASONS. You don't promise anything you aren't 100% sure you will deliver. If you do...and fail to deliver on that....then yes the developer IS at fault for that. However, what I've seen MANY, MANY times.... on boards is developers discuss things that they WANT to do... or "have in the works", ETC... but they put a huge QUALIFICATION in with those statements... that they are not 100% sure it will happen like that. Almost inevitably the end user IGNORES that mile high qualification the Dev put in.... and tries to construe/twist what the Dev said as a PROMISE rather then a plan. THAT is the end-users fault when it happens. It's one of the reasons why you often get so little communication from Dev's on a public forum.

Cause if fans are going to hold every thing you say as an absolute promise.... even when you make it clear to them that you can't promise anything, the ONLY alternative is to never say anything to them. So I'd be very curious to see EXACTLY what was said by them. Maybe your right and they did make firm commitments to you....in that case you've got a legitimate beef about proffesional ethics.  However, VERY OFTEN fans are the ones that take statements as commitments when a straight reading of them indicates they are not.

Furthermore, If what the Dev who wrote that article says  is true..... THEY couldn't tell you any earlier about the NGE stuff because THE DECISION HADN'T BEEN MADE YET. He said they informed the public, as soon as the decison had been finalized. Now, I don't know if what he is claiming there is factualy accurate.... but I've seen enough of what goes on inside Corporations to know that sort of stuff DOES happen.  It's totaly bone-headed and poor performance on the part of the senior decision makers responsible..... but it honestly is more often the case of a failure of competance rather then a failure of ethics. I have no idea which one of those would apply to SOE's case... but I'm not neccesarly going to assume the worst.

Now the stuff going on at CME sounds VERY DIFFERENT to me. At least from the outside it sounds pretty dodgey. I have no inside knowledge of the situation, so I can only judge by what information is publicaly available or comes in 3rd hand.  But yes, if 1/10th of what has been said about that situation prooves true.... there are very serious ethical issues there.

Mel...

You seem to think: LAW = ETHICS

Which is probably the most blindingly stupid statement in the universe. By your logic, slavery is okay as long as some leader somewhere makes a law saying its legal to own a slave.

Just because some company makes everyone who uses their product sign a legal document surrendering all their rights doesn't make anything they decide to do after that ethical or moral. The fact that they even ask you to sign away your rights in the first place is unethical.

Talking with you is a waste of my time. Its clear you are going to continue to whine that video games aren't important enough to be bound by any ethical standard just to justify the fact you don't apparently give a shit about anyone but yourself. You are obviosuly every bit as evil as the people you are defending.

Raltar,

 Going to avoid flaming here.... No I do NOT believe LAW = ETHICS.

I DO, however believe that when a company publishes EXACTLY what they agree to be BOUND BY.....and you READ and SIGN that AGREEMENT  you have NO LEGITIMATE cause to complain when they do something that agreement states they have a RIGHT TO DO.

Companies have a LEGITIMATE RIGHT to change their product offerings. The only time they don't is when that change would impinge on some-one elses right(s)...... OR they have made AGREEMENT or FIRM COMMITMENT not to do so. I have never heard of an MMO yet that has made such an agreement/commitment.  In point of fact, most PUBLISH the fact that they MAY DO so right up front.

There is NOTHING DECEPTIVE or UNETHICAL about changing thier product when they told you right in the EULA agreement you signed that they MIGHT DO JUST THAT.

Edit: Furthermore what "Rights" EXACTLY do you claim they were asking you to sign away?

Do you believe you have an inherent "right" to dictate to some other  person/company  how they develop their product or run their company?

Do you believe you have an inherent "right" to hold them to whatever expectations are in your head, even though they never agreed to such?

That's really the core of the problem here.... far too many people don't understand the difference between a PRIVILEDGE and a RIGHT.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Raltar,

 

Going to avoid flaming here.... No I do NOT believe LAW = ETHICS.

I DO, however believe that when a company publishes EXACTLY what they agree to be BOUND BY.....and you READ and SIGN that AGREEMENT  you have NO LEGITIMATE cause to complain when they do something that agreement states they have a RIGHT TO DO.

Companies have a LEGITIMATE RIGHT to change their product offerings. The only time they don't is when that change would impinge on some-one elses right(s)...... OR they have made AGREEMENT or FIRM COMMITMENT not to do so. I have never heard of an MMO yet that has made such an agreement/commitment.  In point of fact, most PUBLISH the fact that they MAY DO so right up front.

There is NOTHING DECEPTIVE or UNETHICAL about changing thier product when they told you right in the EULA agreement you signed that they MIGHT DO JUST THAT.

 

 

Good post. I read the longer one just prior to this and I absolutely agree.

Players need to go into these games with eyes wide open and realize what they are getting into. This is not to say the game company won't do things that will piss them off but in the end, if they do, the player can just end the subscription.

Game companies do usually say (and I don't recall any mmo company not including this) that they rerserve the rigth to make changes or that gameplay may change. If a player doesn't believe this then they are fooling themselves.

Is it nice or good business to radically change your product? Well, I suppose not. But they do reserve that right and on their end they hopefully don't shoot themselves in the butt.

"LEGITIMATE RIGHT" does NOT equal ethical behavior.

Wrong is wrong, even if you have a contract which allows you to get away with it.

Sovrath,

Thanks, as I mentioned before (I think). I work in the Tech Industry for an ASP...though not related to games. My position is more of an Engineer then Development really....but some of what I do does touch on Development. Sitting on this side of the fence...really gives me alot of insight for the position alot of Dev's in MMO's are in.

Unfortunately, this topic highlights why you often see so little public communication from Dev's. Most actualy LIKE/WANT to talk about their work with the end users of their products. That exchange can also be quite helpful for them in their design work (even if they don't end up using what the end user suggests). However, one of the things Dev's very quickly realize is that they often have VERY LIMITED control over what makes it into the final product that the end user sees/experiences. Heck, sometimes even the senior execs don't have all that much control as the realties of budgets/schedules/resources hit home. However, if you say anything to an end-user.... no matter how much you qualify it as not a sure thing.... people will try to treat it as a promise..... either that or they'll get all PO'd and ragefull if you float an idea that they don't like....even if you try to make it clear that your just floating the idea....and haven't firmed up any decisions with it yet. It's really kinda unfortunate how things tend to go down that way.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Sovrath,

Thanks, as I mentioned before (I think). I work in the Tech Industry for an ASP...though not related to games. My position is more of an Engineer then Development really....but some of what I do does touch on Development. Sitting on this side of the fence...really gives me alot of insight for the position alot of Dev's in MMO's are in.

Unfortunately, this topic highlights why you often see so little public communication from Dev's. Most actualy LIKE/WANT to talk about their work with the end users of their products. That exchange can also be quite helpful for them in their design work (even if they don't end up using what the end user suggests). However, one of the things Dev's very quickly realize is that they often have VERY LIMITED control over what makes it into the final product that the end user sees/experiences. Heck, sometimes even the senior execs don't have all that much control as the realties of budgets/schedules/resources hit home. However, if you say anything to an end-user.... no matter how much you qualify it as not a sure thing.... people will try to treat it as a promise..... either that or they'll get all PO'd and ragefull if you float an idea that they don't like....even if you try to make it clear that your just floating the idea....and haven't firmed up any decisions with it yet. It's really kinda unfortunate how things tend to go down that way.

I was reading an interview (blog? was something) with Brad McQuaid and he stated that one of the things he learned was not to talk about things that aren't 100% going to be put in game.

My initial thought was "isn't this common sense?"

It's sort self fulfilling prophecy as you are correct, devs want to talk about their work, they want to talk about the things that they are excited about. But it's very clear that not everything works out the way they intended.

So what do they do? Leave it in and get a broken or unbalanced system? Remove it and have players rush to the boards decrying the dev team and saying they are lazy?

I worked at a software company and oftentimes I would see them include things, remove things and rush to meet some sort of arbitrary deadline that someone higher up created because the customer wanted to see results.

Software develpment seems to be a messy business as who knows how long it will take to make something that works relatively bug free. And after it is done, will it work the way it was meant to?

At one point I was looking at the user interface and commented on how it wasn't really very user friendly nor was it aesthetically pleasing. the comment I got was that it (and this is paraphrased) fulfills the requirement and that if the customer wanted it changed they would have to go back and discuss it with the customer regarding extra fees, etc. So essentially, given the scope of the project, the interface got the job done but there were no more resources to spend on changing it and it would be an entirely new additioin to the job if the customer wanted it changed.

At the time I thought that was B.S. but while looking at everyone work long hours to meet the deadline it sort of made sense. It would have been nice to have revisited the interface but there really wasn't enough time and the interface worked.

I have to say that companies that have the resources to hold off until the product is to their liking are most likely few and far in between.

A bigger problem is that many EULAs, in the software industry in general and the video game industry in particular are "legal" because they have not been tested in court yet. In the very few times it has to this point, EULAs and the software makers in general, have come out on the losing side. Companies have gotten away with borderline/illegal EULAs, because not many people are going to go through the trouble of suing over $50 + a monthly fee, but, with "virtual property" becoming more and more common, because of all this RMT BS companies are doing now, it is only a matter of time.

As a side note, it is a well founded legal principle (in the US, at least) that an illegal contract (and there are many legal definitions of this) is NOT enforceable, under any circumstance, regardless if there is a signed contract or not. If someone decides to sell a kidney for $50000, and then doesn't, you can't sue, because the activity is prohibited by law. A person can not contractually agree to have their rights violated. If in a software EULA, it said that CME or SOE or whomever had the right to come to your house and kick you in the balls if you cancel a subscription, would that be legal? Of course not.

Bottom line is that clicking that "I accept" button on terms and conditions, is worthless, in most cases, and means nothing. It is an attempt to make people think that the company has the right to do this and that, but in reality, the EULAs are, to use legal parlance, crap.

Below is one of the few cases of where a EULA went to court, and the software company lost, huge....

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

A Seattle man is free to sell second-hand software on eBay, a US court has said. It found that the maker of the software, Autodesk, could not stop the resale by claiming that its software is licensed rather than sold.

Software companies have long claimed that software is not sold to users but licensed, and many software licences forbid the resale of the software. A Seattle District Court has found, though, that the packages of software in question were sold, not licensed, and that the licence is not binding on subsequent buyers.

Timothy Vernor bought several copies of Autodesk's AutoCAD design software in 2005 and 2007 from businesses that had originally bought the software from Autodesk. He then put the software up for sale on eBay. Each package contained discs, a copy of a licence agreement and other documentation.

Each time, Autodesk issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice asking eBay to suspend the auction, which it did.

Each time that happened Vernor wrote to Autodesk asserting his rights and saying that the software was legitimate and not a pirated copy, but received no reply. Ebay reinstated the auctions. At one point eBay suspended his seller's account for a month for repeat infringements of its policies when Autodesk had complained a number of times.

Vernor applied to the Court for a declaration that he had the right to sell the software because he believed that this process would be repeated every time he tried to buy and sell software.

The court said that Autodesk's initial transfer of the software to the businesses was a sale, not a licensing arrangement. Those businesses, therefore, had the right to re-sell the software with or without the permission of Autodesk.

The 'first sale doctrine' is an important part of US copyright legislation. Richard Jones, the judge in the case, said that if invoked, the doctrine would protect Vernor.

"If there were no License, there is no dispute that Mr. Vernor's resale of the AutoCAD packages would be legal," he said in his ruling. "The first sale doctrine permits a person who owns a lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy."

The Court relied on a 1977 decision involving prints of films, in which the US government took action against Woodrow Wise, who operated a film sales operation in Los Angeles.

That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.

Jones said that subsequent decisions had backed Autodesk's contention that software distribution could be a sale, he had to stay consistent with the earliest relevant ruling, which was that of the case of Wise.

"Although technology has changed, the question at the core of this case is not technological," said Jones. "Mr. Vernor does not seek to take advantage of new technology to ease copying, he seeks to sell a package of physical objects which contain copies of copyrighted material. The essential features of such sales vary little whether selling movie prints via mail (as in Wise) or software packages via eBay."

The ruling also dealt with the extent of the power of the original software licence. Vernor asked the Court to declare that the original licence, which forbade the re-selling of the software, did not control his behaviour.

The Court said that the argument Autodesk had earlier made – that Vernor should not be allowed to own the software because the licence was non-transferable – must govern to whom it can apply.

"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."

The software industry relies on categorising what consumers often think of as software sales as software licensing agreements. If followed by other courts, the Autodesk ruling could affect the ability of software publishers to restrict the transfer of their technology in that way.

The court denied Autodesk's motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The case continues.

Originally posted by Burntvet

A bigger problem is that many EULAs, in the software industry in general and the video game industry in particular are "legal" because they have not been tested in court yet. In the very few times it has to this point, EULAs and the software makers in general, have come out on the losing side. Companies have gotten away with borderline/illegal EULAs, because not many people are going to go through the trouble of suing over $50 + a monthly fee, but, with "virtual property" becoming more and more common, because of all this RMT BS companies are doing now, it is only a matter of time.

As a side note, it is a well founded legal principle (in the US, at least) that an illegal contract (and there are many legal definitions of this) is NOT enforceable, under any circumstance, regardless if there is a signed contract or not. If someone decides to sell a kidney for $50000, and then doesn't, you can't sue, because the activity is prohibited by law. A person can not contractually agree to have their rights violated. If in a software EULA, it said that CME or SOE or whomever had the right to come to your house and kick you in the balls if you cancel a subscription, would that be legal? Of course not.

Bottom line is that clicking that "I accept" button on terms and conditions, is worthless, in most cases, and means nothing. It is an attempt to make people think that the company has the right to do this and that, but in reality, the EULAs are, to use legal parlance, crap.

THANK YOU!

Finally... someone who gets it!

Just because a company can force you to sign something before you use their product doesn't make it legal. And even in the cases where it does, it doesn't make their actions ethical by default.

Wrong is still wrong at the end of the day.

Well most EULA wont work, but some aspects of the EULA in europe at least will stand if they go to court.

Since Vista MS has specified you license the software from them and dont own it, thats why you can still buy used copies of XP, and transfer them around on PC's, which you cannot do on Vista and especially Windows7, this is licensed to the machine you install it on (first time), if your PC craps out and you buy another one, you need to buy another copy of Windows 7.  Now one way MS is trying to absorb the XP copies is to give you the Windows XP virtual PC in Windows 7, this id doanloadable free from MS for Windows 7, but you need a XP license for it.  Now if you read the agreement on that, you will find that once you assign your XP license to Windows 7, it will be bound and no longer transferable.  Nice little trick that dont ya think.....

Anyways, going back to the original EULA and agreements you will have to accept when playing games, most have a EULA and then a terms of use, 2 separate documents that you will agree to, in wow you have to accept twice.  One will cover what you can actually do with the software, copying, etc. And one will cover how you use the software, sort of more ingame based, no hacking, no selling of items, no this or that.

The main issue here is that if you sell items, and their terms specify you cant do this, they ban the account, and it wont be based on the EULA but on the terms of use.  The terms of use will cover a much broader range of things, the EULA is more to do with the actual software, the terms more to do with the game itself. 

With the terms of use they have a lot more power to do stuff as they like it, this is why when you update WOW, you have to re-agree to both the eula and the terms and conditions, this is basically forcing you to accept any changes that have been made.  If you dont agree to the terms then you cannot access the game.....

More and more companies are now licensing there software as this allows them to control their property, how you use it and terms you have to follow, its much easier just to turn your software off if you breach the terms than going through court cases.  Another issue is that ignorance isn't acceptable as an excuse, the EULA and terms and conditions are literally an agreement you sign (by clicking agree).

Originally posted by yellowperil

Well most EULA wont work, but some aspects of the EULA in europe at least will stand if they go to court.

 

Since Vista MS has specified you license the software from them and dont own it, thats why you can still buy used copies of XP, and transfer them around on PC's, which you cannot do on Vista and especially Windows7, this is licensed to the machine you install it on (first time), if your PC craps out and you buy another one, you need to buy another copy of Windows 7.  Now one way MS is trying to absorb the XP copies is to give you the Windows XP virtual PC in Windows 7, this id doanloadable free from MS for Windows 7, but you need a XP license for it.  Now if you read the agreement on that, you will find that once you assign your XP license to Windows 7, it will be bound and no longer transferable.  Nice little trick that dont ya think.....

 

Just wanted to point out that you can install Windows 7 on up to 3 PCs if you buy the upgrade instead of the full install.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/offers/windows-7-family-pack.aspx

And the regular XP Virtual PC is free and runs in Windows 7, so you don't need to use the built-in one. Mainly because some processors don't support Windows 7's native Virtual XP. Which means no need for an XP key.

There is nothing special about EULA's or other licensing agreements. It's a contract, like any other (like the one you sign when you apply for a credit card or finance a car or house). Just like ANY contract, it must adhere to standards of the law (including common & torte law) in order to be enforceable. Any EULA  is no more or less enforceable then any other type of contract.

However, don't fool yourself into thinking that just because there is something in contract that you don't like means that it's illegal OR immoral. The whole point of spelling things out in contracts and licensing agreements is so that both parties know what they are agreeing to in advance and there is no ambiguity about their obligations to one another Provisions in contracts, by default, ARE considered binding UNLESS they violate a well established legal principle (like the Right of First Sale in the example given).

Note also just because one Court makes a ruling about something once, doesn't mean that ruling will stand. Rulings get reversed on appeal all the time.

I just wish this game had some luck on its side foe once. Im a big fan of Stargate and would like to try out the game.

(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dances with Vala Mal doran)

Just because a company can force you to sign something before you use their product doesn't make it legal. And even in the cases where it does, it doesn't make their actions ethical by default.

Wrong is still wrong at the end of the day.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

There is nothing special about EULA's or other licensing agreements. It's a contract, like any other (like the one you sign when you apply for a credit card or finance a car or house). Just like ANY contract, it must adhere to standards of the law (including common & torte law) in order to be enforceable. Any EULA  is no more or less enforceable then any other type of contract.

However, don't fool yourself into thinking that just because there is something in contract that you don't like means that it's illegal OR immoral. The whole point of spelling things out in contracts and licensing agreements is so that both parties know what they are agreeing to in advance and there is no ambiguity about their obligations to one another Provisions in contracts, by default, ARE considered binding UNLESS they violate a well established legal principle (like the Right of First Sale in the example given).

Note also just because one Court makes a ruling about something once, doesn't mean that ruling will stand. Rulings get reversed on appeal all the time.

I am trying to dig up more on that particular case, but the very real trend is that software makers are trying REALLY hard to keep most EULA disputes from going to verdict. Why? Two reasons:

1. Software companies, as an industry, are trying to avoid any solid precedents coming down that are going to set hard limits on what they can and can not do. Up to now, they have had things mostly all their own way, and the rights of the "customer" are fairly undefined and since they are, there is no single standard they must meet. Once the courts say "You can do this, but you can't do that.," everyone from game makers to the guy in the basement writing apps for an I-phone may be affected. Not something the software companies want. At all. And, technology usually outstrips the law, by 5-10 years or so, before the law catches up. The law is finally starting to catch up.

2. In particular, game companies and others selling "virtual property" want their products considered both a product AND a service, to constrain customer rights (as seen in that cited case from the paper). The companies say "Here is our EULA, our terms of SERVICE, you can do this, but not that, and WE can do anything we want at any time and you have no legal recourse (many game EULAs actually say this, and there is NO WAY in hell that is legal/legally enforceable). They further state that the accounts are the property of the company and access to it is controlled by them and they can turn around and suspend it at any time. Much of that is probably not enforceable in a lot of US states, but let's pretend it is for the moment. The companies say, you can't sell accts, game disks, in game currency, items for cash, and similar things. Some of that violates first use/fair use doctrine, but much doesn't, if it is a true "service" being provided.

But then the game companies turn around and start selling people virtual products. People buy that Sword of Uberness for $10 or that Ride-able Glass Rhino for $20 in the RMT shop, and all of a sudden customers have Virtual Property. Any property, virtual or otherwise, comes with a set of rights to the buyer. If a customer buys $1000 worth of virtual property in a game, and the company denies access for anything besides non-payment, is it legal? Not yet answered by a court, but not if it was considered real property. If the EULA says, "We can turn off you acct at any time," but if that deprives the player access to property he/she BOUGHT, and does not refund the purchase price, is that legal? Probably not. If the company puts out a patch/update/expansion to the game, and the value of that Sword of Uberness is damaged/reduced because the company wanted to sell the Sword of Uberness +2, and they company intentional undermines the usefulness of the original item to make people buy the new one? Is that legal? Hasn't been answered yet, but probably not. The game  companies are treating what they offer as a service on one hand, and a product on the other, depending on what is better for them at the time. That is not going to last.

Bottom line is that most things can not be both THIS and THAT under the law. The law abhors the undefined. If something is a product, customers have these consumer and legal rights. If something is a service, customers have those consumer and legal rights. Right now, software companies in particular do NOT want that question resolved, because they have the best of both worlds, and a solid decision going either way can only hurt them.

But the party may soon be over....

BurntVet,

It depends on whether the product being sold is defined as "Property" or "Service". A different set of rights are implied for each type of product.  It really comes down to what the company advertises the Product to the end user.  The VAST MAJORITY of SAS or ASP.... and this would include MMO's .... structure their Products as SERVICES NOT PROPERTY.  That's how they advertise their products. That's what they put in their Licensing Agreements, etc.  Alot of players would LOVE to construe that they actualy OWN some of those digital bits.... but WISHING it were so does not make it true.... and flies in the face of the facts.
 

Note, there ARE exceptions to this.....those companies that go out and sell you "Virtual Trading Cards" and stuff like that, basicaly tell you they are selling you virtual property... there are a few other games/services that structure things like that but most don't.

What MMO's (and other ASP's) do is really no different then what movie theatres do when they sell you a ticket to see a show....or Amusment Parks do when they sell you an admission ticket to thier park. They may even customize the experience just for you.... but at the end of the day, what they are selling you is an Entertainment Service... the right to visit and experience thier content...they are NOT selling you the content itself. When you buy a ticket to an amusement park... you DON'T OWN the rides you take.... NOR do you have the right to tell the park how to design thier rights.  This does not mean you have NO RIGHTS... you have a right to access the service you purchased.... within certain reasonable limitations.

The AutoCad situation which that case involved is quite different. That product doesn't follow the Software As a Service model..... it's traditional shrink wraped software. It's not client/server. Everything you need to access and fully use the program is contained on those disks you purchase.

Essentialy what the Court ruled is that he was SOLD the physical media and therefore owned that physical media and had the right to resell it. 

What you are actually concerned with is who owns the DATA/Content that is created/gathered with a particular service offered. That is something which my company has intimate knowledge of since we ARE in the SAS business (b2b services, not entertainment). If you check the applicable case law.... you should find that ownership of the data is determined by the terms of the contract. That's something that our corporate lawyers spent ALOT of time researching before we went into business.

For the players sake, they really should hope that remains true. From a purely technical stand-point, I can tell you if that a company is overly hamstrung in how they can modify the service they offer... you WONT have functional online services.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

I agree with most of that, because it is well, correct.

Part of the problem that remains is that games MMOs are going more and more to RMT models, so in effect, the line is being blurred between whether an MMO, when there are RL money transactions involved, is solely a "service" as the MMO makers contend. My guess is probably not. If a game (or other) company sells a player a bunch of virtual property and then denies access (by suspend/canceling an acct, without offering a cash refund for the virtual property) would that be a violation of property rights? In many cases, the answer is "probably".  It becomes (or could become) the equivalent of a company renting a person a storage unit, and not letting them access what is inside.

Another thing is what happens when a game company patches/changes a game damaging the value of the virtual property? Is that Actionable? Could be. I seem to recall a person/company in the UK that bought a bunch of "virtual real estate" in Second Life for something on the order of USD $250k. What if the company that made Second Life expanded the playable surface in the game by 10X the very next day, rendering that 250k of  virtual real estate worth much less? Actionable in court? Maybe.

The other part of that cited case from the news story, aside from the hard media resale issue (which was more or less difinitivly answered), was the fact that the EULA that Autodesk had written, was crap, and probably violated one or more of the UCC or customer rights statutes in Washington State. That is the part the was really interesting, was that the Court  clearly reflected that the EULA was not the be all and end all of the transaction, even if the buyer "agreed" to it, because the contract was defective and therefore unenforcable.  That is not unusual for contracts in general, but is one of the first times a software EULA has been taken to task and on the point the contract was so one sided, as written, as to be inequitable under the law.

That is the point. Software makers in particular have been getting away with making people think they have no/very limited rights, because of the EULAs, and that court decided that that was not the case.

Well I remember in the past that the license agreement was always in side the box, so basically caused issues on the premise, how can you agree to something you cant read before you open the box, and in the older cases the agreement was not in the software but the license inside the box.  I remember some cases were thrown out due to the software being licensed only by the paper inside the box, not when it was being installed, so they broke the law (or whatever) forcing people to agree to a license that couldnt be read until the box had been opened, thus making the software un-returnable.

Now all software has its agreements as you install or upgrade it. 

As to virtual property I can see in the future more and more companies will control the virtual property and these items will be taxed, its already noted that millions are spent in such virtual property that never are taxed, nevermind buying goods in one country and not paying the tax certain gov's would like to tax you with.  It brings in a whole new ballgame if the Gaming companies try and control these virtual items, as should they actually pay tax on them, and if so, which countries should get there cut, I know already that the UK and US are in discussions with ways in which to do cross border taxing for online services.

A whole new area of taxing is on the horizon here.

Originally posted by yellowperil

I remember some cases were thrown out due to the software being licensed only by the paper inside the box, not when it was being installed, so they broke the law (or whatever) forcing people to agree to a license that couldnt be read until the box had been opened, thus making the software un-returnable. 

Now all software has its agreements as you install or upgrade it. 

Explain to me how that is different then. If I don't get to read the agreement until I install the product, then I still have to get the product out of the box to do that, which makes it un-returnable. Seems to me that I'm still not allowed to see the agreement until AFTER I've already paid for the product, which more or less forces me to agree to it no matter if I actually am willing to or not.