When you buy a disk...

Books have EULA's too.  Check under the copyright notice.

The media is yours whether it's a USB drive, CD, paper, etc.  The content is the creators.

Because a disc is a disc and a book is a book.

Go to your heart doctor and ask him why a dentist can't do the surgery?  

Yea, you're still not allowed to copy the pages of the book and sell it. That's what its like to install the same CD on a bazillion PCs

Yes, but you are allowed to use a book anywhere.

Yes, books may have terms to restrict their use, but not overly restrictive. What I don't like is when games lock you into a specific multiplayer network, a specific configuration, and other small, relatively annoying things just to keep profits high.

That's crazy talk.  You can only run PC games on PC, not your Atari 2600.  Boo hoo. 

Defining the level of restriction that is onerous is a personal issue; not an issue for a vendor. :NOTSURE:

You have now left the realm of your original post. Good luck with whatever tangents you are heading for. 

I don't mind on which platform, I mind the amount of DRM on it.

I wish I could use my games on any computer, without having to call customer support or use up my three installs.

Books do not have EULA's in them, what planet do some of you live on? Copyright notification has nothing to do with licensing, they are separate issues entirely.

The only reason you'd ever need to get a license for a book is if you were interested in breeching standard copyright law. A publisher can make allowances for activities that are normally withheld rights. For instance, an educational book will probably have exceptions for educational use that allow copying, or they may give licenses to educators.

I guess this explains why so many morons can't figure out what's wrong with an EULA. Licenses are to GIVE rights, not take them away. All copy rights are already restricted just by stating that it's copyrighted.

You do own the books you buy too. What you lack is the right to copy them, hence the word copyright. There are plenty of things in life where ownership doesn't confer do whatever the hell you want with it rights. The discharging of firearms outside of necessary use is, generally speaking, illegal inside city limits. Your firearm is probably even licensed.

They aren't different at all.  Both are notifications of what you can or cannot do with the object.

In both cases...the software CD and the book....you purchase the medium, and LIMITED use rights to its content.

There are many 'uses' to which you can put both EQUALLY.

You can read them/load their software/listen to them.

You can stick them under a table to stop a wobble.

You can burn them for warmth.

You can on-sell them to a third party.

Both EULA and Copyright are notifications of conditions under which you are entitled to 'make use' of their content.

Both deny [normally] full, unfettered rights...even a GNU licence has rules/restrictions of use.

Restrictions will vary....they are the perogative of their author/owner and are generally final/absolute.

Copyright notification can only release rights normally retained under copyright law, and you do own the book you buy, not just the paper and ink.

EULA's claim whatever bullshit the writers come up with and can include restrictions beyond the legal limitations.

Perhaps you haven't heard of first sale doctrine? Licensing software came about because vendors wanted to further restrict the usage rights of the consumers beyond that of copyright, but any such limitations were illegal. They decided to pass them off as licenses to try and get around the problem. Since the US is the only country I know of where they're being allowed to get away with this shit to start with, you could at least find out the local laws before trying to refute me.

Germany is the only country I know of that has declared EULAs illegal - and that only because the buyer cannot read it before purchase. Some countries have passed laws to outlaw specific provisions, but not invalidating them entirely.

Same in The Netherlands. If the EULA can not be read before or during purchase, it's invalid. Our Civil laws take care of that. Also, any denial/witdrawing(*) from liability by the manufacturer is highly questionable since our laws don't allow that either.

Copyright is still valid though.

(*) Don't really know the proper English term for what I mean. (a manufacturer can't say: 'you can't sue me for liability'.)

I wonder if those laws have been challenged - most EULAs are freely available over the internet, so any interested customer could find them if they wanted to. Clearly the EULA can be read before purchase, the customer simply chose not to. An alternative would be to require the retailer to have a paper copy available on request. Even at a large game store that wouldn't be all that many.

If I sold games, I would not allow my products to be sold under those laws. To use WoW as an example, Blizzard would have no option to ban a user in Germany or The Netherlands for any reason whatsoever. The EULA is what gives them the right to remove disruptive users and cheaters. Any such person from these countries could sue - and win! - for being banned.


As for liability, different states have laws regulating what can and cannot be claimed as liability. Most warranties limit liability to direct losses, not incidental or consequential damage. For example, if a computer you use to run a business fails under warranty, the manufacturer is liable for the cost of the computer, but not for any losses your business may suffer as a result of the failure (loss of productivity, loss of critical records, etc).

Blizzard's EULA/TOU is presented to the user at account creation and before first login after each patch as well, so I'm not so sure that those laws entirely nullify it.

From my understanding of the German law, the fact that you can't read it before purchase nullifies the EULA entirely, whether you have to agree to it subsequently or not. You did not have to sign it to purchase the game, thus you are not held to it.

Obviously I don't know first hand, as I don't read German, and legalese doesn't translate well under the best of circumstances.

Well, actually, the way I interpret it is if the EULA was invalid, Blizzard basically has free reign over the user's account. The EULA tells Blizzard what it can and can't do as much as it does the user, in the "If the user does this, Blizzard can do this" sense. So if the EULA is void, there's nothing stopping Blizzard from doing whatever they please with the account, since the user has none of the rights granted to him under the EULA :p

That turns out not to be the case. In current practice (EULAs considered valid) Blizard has the discretion to do pretty much what it pleases, as the user has essentially no rights over the program. When the EULA is considered invalid, it strips Blizard of the right to police users, set use policy, etc. as the users have considerably more rights as program "owners" compared to program "liscensees".

As I recall the non-disclosed-EULA-prior-to-purchase was determined to be an 'issue' for Australian consumers/consumer Law but was circumvented by the provision of prior notification that there was an EULA to agree to after purchase.

In other words...as long as there was a notice like 'warning...EULA enclosed' such that the consumer could decide one way or another all was well.  They weren't even required to state the EULA wording.

As life goes on there's a logical expectation of common awareness that things such as computer games will come with an EULA and thus the game's purchase constitutes a tacit agreement to the acceptance of the validity of the EULA conditions.

Usually 'the Law is an ass' is attributed to its infancy.  Eventually it [the Law] catches up with technology/social advancement....and is moulded to suit.

That's exactly what the US has, with the additional proviso that the user must actively click "I agree" to procede with installation. You cannot have a EULA that states "installation of this program constitutes acceptance of this Agreement."

To understand the difference, you have too understand certain aspects of copyright law. it is clear that you lack this understanding. i could explain it to, and it would, most likely, take many pages to do so. So I'm not going to, mostly because it's already been done, by Lawrence Lessig in his book "Free Culture" which may be found here

It is a full length book, but for any layman* who wishes to understand copyright law, it is an excellent starting point.

* my use of the word "layman," is intended to refer to people who do not practice law, and especially copyright law, in a professional setting.

But the user could claim the product is faulty / defective and demand a replacement Which of course will be faulty again, so in the end the company would be selling a defective service and the user could claim costs incurred to resolve the issue and his money back.