Electronic Arts has updated its Terms of Service Agreement for the Origin platform. Following Sony's steps, and taking it even further, EA has added a new clause that prevents users from suing them in both class action and jury trial forms. Or in other words, in a scummy move - EA wants you to give up your civil rights.
Source: NGOHQ
Can this even be legal? I wouldn't think so. What's to stop anyone from putting such a clause in a contract? Can you imagine a contractor renovating your home, with a "no sue" clause, accidentally burning your house to the ground and then simply walking away with absolutely no recourse? Someone will challenge these clauses, and Sony and EA will lose.
As quoted by LowRun......"So, we are one week past AMD's worst case scenario for BD's availability but they don't feel like communicating about the delay, I suppose AMD must be removed from the reliable sources list for AMD's products launch dates"
it is legal in the united states because in the years between founding and now, businesses have been given the rights of people, and people's rights have been eroded.Originally Posted by freeloader
The only way for Sony and EA to loose is if folks stop buying or using anything from them. They will either go broke or remove those clauses. Unfortunately, most folks don't read the EULA and won't find this out until they try to sue them.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...16&postcount=6
Here in Greece any such clause is actually void and unenforceable afaik
Seems we made our greatest error when we named it at the start
for though we called it "Human Nature" - it was cancer of the heart
CPU: AMD X3 720BE@ 3,4Ghz
Cooler: Xigmatek S1283(Terrible mounting system for AM2/3)
Motherboard: Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P(F4) RAM: 2x 2GB OCZ DDR3 1600Mhz Gold 8-8-8-24
GPU:HD5850 1GB
PSU: Seasonic M12D 750W Case: Coolermaster HAF932(aka Dusty)
To buy BF3 or not to buy BF3. That is the question...
Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor
That post you are quoting seem rather shortsighted.
Imagine a situation similar to the what happened with the PlayStation Network; Your are not being able to play your EA games that require a constant connection to EA servers for a few weeks because the server go down for some reason.
LoL, no question at all. I'm not going to give my money to a company that wants to limit my civil rights.
Business are organizations made up of people...
To be frank I don't think it'll hold up in court.
^^^^
Click me
I'm inclined to agree. Armed Assault 2 and the upcoming ArmA 3 are more realistic and complete military sims anyway. We'll teach EA a hard lesson for pulling off of Steam and doing this EULA bull crap.
Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor
Sadly, I don't think we will. The games will still sell in their millions and will be considered a success.
You'd need an advertising campaign of a size that rivals those of the games to stand any chance of swaying public opinion enough to make a difference to EA sales.
______
Sometimes, it's not your time. Sometimes, you have to make it your time. Sometimes, it can ONLY be your time.
Steam is not far behind, their main goal is to take EA's place.
Furthermore - EULA's affect only legal clients, so this is just another reason why "piracy is better than payed software....less and less rights as a customer than those using that software for free (pirated)". I can understand the idea of buying software to support those who created, but in this conditions - most of that support goes to the ones selling it which seem to have no respect for the ones who buy their product... so basically "you're also supporting this unethical contracts" between you and those who sold you their products.
- so why keep comparing virtual products with physical products claiming they're the same and should be treated the same, when in reality they're "OBVIOUSLY" not the same and even "your rights" on using them are not the same (you could say - you have no rights cause of their tricky "EULA")?
- they have no return policy
- they have no warranty (unless you pay for their services - which is a different thing, like in the case of an antivirus)
- you're not allowed to review them compared to a similar products (you could get sued for doing that)
- you can't even sue them if they damage your OS/System - which is not something new....
Yeah, you'll teach them a huge lesson. Just like these people.
1258035395841.jpg
Wasn't MW3 going to have dedicated servers?
It seems they DID TEACH them a lesson.
In the Netherlands to.
A EULA or TOS or whatever you want to call them wont hold up in court.
EA can put it in there if they want to but if someone wants to take legal action against them this wont help them to prevent it.
edit:
Why would they even want to put it in there? Do they have a good reason to expect lawsuits?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Groucho Marx
i know my grammar sux so stop hitting me
Since we're talking about "EA" - what do you think...Why would they even want to put it in there? Do they have a good reason to expect lawsuits?
- or let me put it in another way: Those this answer your question?
Last edited by XSAlliN; 09-24-2011 at 10:59 AM.
To determine the validity / legality of EA's new EULA, would involve a court challenge or class action suit. I have yet to hear of a gaming company enforcing a EULA in a manner similar to the RIAA law suits. However, the language in the EULA is overly protective to EA. EA with their recent actions are just plain greedy. Once their origin sinks a bit in the market, they will probably bring limited content back to Steam to increase their sales margin. Even though I purchased Bad Company 2 through Steam, there is very little compelling reason to purchase BF3. EA with their greedy parochial approach to marketing rehashed games is starting to get boring.
Asrock Extreme 4 | 2600K | 16G G Skill | Powercolor LCS 7970 | PCP&C 910 Silencer | Crucial C300 + Intel X-25V + Raptors | D-Tek Fusion v2 | Swiftech MCR Drive 360 | HP LP2475
I would not be so sure about that:
http://www.osnews.com/story/19682/Th...he_Netherlands
The only reason why MW3 will have dedicated servers is to show people they have something that BF3 doesnt. The people didnt do anything, a threat from a rival is what made them do the move
also for all those people saying they wont buy BF3 or an EA product because theyre greedy or evil i think is a little ridiculous. I guess that means you wont buy a sony, microsoft, or apple product too because those companies over the years have been just as greedy and evil as anyone else. if not more so at times
Last edited by phantomferrari; 09-24-2011 at 10:54 PM.
I will say this, I really do think that the loss in sales and all of the complaints did get EA to finally drop the activation limits.
I don't think thats going to be the case here and I also don't think that this will cost them any sales.
Not sure (been a while) but i think Apple won that case mostly because Psystar cracked Apples copyright protection (to be able to install the software on non Apple PCs) and because they changed Apple's software and because they charged for it.
There are still loads of things that dont make them binding contracts (i have to admit it was a nice read but those legal experts forgot some of the more basic reasons why it isnt valid).
First a few general reasons why they arent legal in a lot of country's.
I have read my share of EULAs that mention laws of a foreign country and that it will enforce them. In some country's that can make the entire UELA void.
A lot of them also mention rules that are against the country's own law and that can ofc also void the entire thing.
Another one is that you agree to the contract by simply clicking ''ok''.
There are country's that dont see this as being a valid contract. And that for it to be valid it has to be on paper and signed with pen.
In the Netherlands clicking on OK is seen as a binding contract (just like a verbal one) but those are so easy to get out of, it is far from waterproof. Its why most forms of contracts still require you to actually sign it on paper with pen.
Main reason is probably that there is a requirement to be able to read the UELA before actually buying the game and opening the box (putting it online wont work). you have to be able to read it on paper orso where you buy it). This because a contract has to be presented to you before actually paying for the item and breaking its seal.
Another basic one is that there is the requirement to be able to read the entire UELA again after agreeing to it. Simply mentioning a web address where you can read it wont work. Either the entire thing has to be included on paper or there has to be the option to print the thing when it is on your screen. Copy paste wont do. Some have the entire EULA in the book included with the game but not all and these days a lot of games dont have a booklet included anymore.
The there is the entire debate on the UELA only popping up when you install the game or (with some games) when you patch it. This could mean that it doesn't apply to your m8 that visits and plays the already installed game on your PC. But thats a really boring grey debate where there is no real answer.
Tbh i (and im sure everyone here) would love to see someone break an UELA and then go to court and have a proper lawyer. And then in a country where 1 party cant out-lawyer you simply by having more money (like you always see on TV). Because atm i dont think there are any specific laws about software EULAs and the things that make them non legal are actually the small things.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Groucho Marx
i know my grammar sux so stop hitting me
if you sign their UELA, you can still sue them, in the US you can. They are being too broad, unless they say you can't sue us for this this this this and this, that might have some holding. Clicking OK is not necessarily a binding agreement either.
This is nothing new, many companies have been doing this for years. Maybe you guys should read your user agreements with the companies you are contracted with.
Correct. An arbitration clause or a clause to limit the expense of litigation is very common (I draft agreements similar to this almost every day). Nothing is keeping you from suing EA. However, I can see what loss you could possibly suffer that would necessitate litigation.
Regardless, the statement that your 'civil rights' are being limited/abused/taken away is completely wrong. Entering into a contract with EA has nothing to do with civil rights. If you think this is the case you have no idea what civil rights are and why they exist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks