EULA rejection

The EULA is not even legal in most parts of Europe including Germany.

Actually I am in Europe (The Netherlands), but I am quite confident even that US laws recognize the principle of a sale agreement.

By the way, an EULA can be legal in Europe, but is seen as "terms and conditions" and must comply to laws covering what can be stated in terms and conditions. They for sure cannot reverse sales agreements, and terms and conditions have to be readable before the sale takes place, which makes that most EULA's are void.

I've been saying that for years...

If you don't agree with it, simply return the unused product and get a refund.

Such a big deal over nothing.

"The EULA states I should read it before use. This totally bullshit, to be valid I need to have read it before sale. It is void."

Nope.
If you install the product it is implied that you agree to it.
If you don't, then don't install it.

As Stardock has fullfilled all its obligations under the sales agreement, namely, provide me with the game as was advertised, I have no reason to return my product.



No, no, this is legally terms and conditions, which should have been readable at the moment of sale. Further, as the transaction that has happened is legally a sale of a product, this cannot be undone without my permission.

Compare with the television example, if a letter in the box says "by switching on the television you agree that you have not bought this television", this doesn't change anything, because by handing over the invoice, I can prove I have bought it.

@Moosetek13: I don't know where you living pal, but at least in Germany as Arutha Wolfsherz already mentioned these EULA are worthless in most circumstances. And agreeing to it is not binding as it is non existing judical.

It is very simple: as long the EULA is not stated in full form with all implications on the moment of purchase it is irrelevant, because the purchase contract is closed and the owner has all the rights given to him on moment of transaction. You can't change or narrow it afterwards like that with the threat of forbidding the usage of the product.

So agreeing to the EULA is NOT binding. There was a recent court yard deceision in Germany enforcing that. But I lost the link and fogot the details (narf!).

Anyway I'm not sure how it is in other countries.

dmantione - If you're in the Netherlands (or Germany, as mentioned) the EULA is pretty much irrelevant. Under US law, however, EULAs are binding under most circumstances. There are basically two conditions: the external packaging must have a warning that use is subject to a EULA, and the user must actively affirm the agreement, but clicking "I agree" or something at the bottom.

There's a rather lengthy discussion of this here. The basics of the argument is: no, you didn't purchase a copy of the game, you cannot purchase something Stardock hasn't consented to sell. You purchased a license to use the product, but you do not actually own that copy.

For that matter, when was the last time you saw all the terms and conditions when you purchased an airline ticket, or insurance? Never, that's when.

Yes, I know EULA's are problematic in the old world. Why do I care? My intention is twofold:

A) Explicit disagreement right from the start makes very clear that I have not accepted anything. After the purchase the copy is my property. Any click on an accept button is just a technical mean to get access to my property and no agreement exists. Actually I can't remember having clicked any accept button, I learned about the EULA by finding the EULA.txt in the game's directory.

Regarding buying a license or a copy: Selling a license where the software does not change ownership and payment is a valid legal construction (this is the reason an EULA can be valid even on this side of the Atlantic), but this must then be clear in the sales agreement. If the proof of the agreement (i.e. invoice) does not state anything else, there can be only one conclusion: This is a normal sale with normal change of ownership.

Signalling a message that I do not consider it a normal way of doing business that I have to give away all my consumer rights. While common in the software industry, EULA's are not necessary to protect intellectual property (copyright laws take care of that), they are an invention of greedy software companies that want to take away all your consumer rights. Now, actually Stardock does not seem to be a greedy company, the actual contents of this EULA aren't that evil at all. But even Stardock shall respect my consumer rights. I don't buy televisions that I do not own afterwards, I don't buy software that I do not own afterwards.

Well the point thats made here is that you never actually bought the game . You bought the license for it. The game itself is free to download, but it's not freeware. Quite f* up really.

I personally agree with you and dislike this form of sale. Although I really like galciv2 (and expansions), I will most likely never buy a Stardock product again. (Although that decision is also based on other factors like poor quality programming and support)

I remember reading years ago someone bought a Microsoft product, didn't agree to the EULA, and took it back to the store to demand a refund. They wouldn't give it to him. Microsoft did clearly state you could return it for a FULL refund if you disagreed, and eventually the store capitulated.

Thing is though, it shouldn't be like that. It's not legally enforceable to say to someone "Okay, now you've bought this TV, you can only watch channels 3, 5 and 16."

I once got into a debate with the CEO of a reasonably well known game maker. I was arguing that I can use a crack. He was saying that it was forbidden in the EULA. This went back and forth until I pointed out that, in Canada (at the time. I don't know if this has changed) he could shove his EULA where the sun didn't shine as it wasn't worth a damn under Canadian law. He said "Oh, well, yes, in Canada..."

A similar thing is pulled with iPod's and the like. For my iPod I had to agree to not modify or hack it. I'm sorry, but if I pay for something, it's MINE. I don't care what you say. The world doesn't work that way, regardless of what software and hardware makers would have you believe. (Outside the Corporate States of America anyway.)

Now here's an interesting point. If you download a game rip off the net, where the crackers have removed protection etc... You don't actually have to run the setup program. That means you never have to click that you agree to the EULA.

I've often wondered what the legal status is there, where a user has never agreed to not copy, modify etc...

Regardless, it's about time more people stood up to this corporate bullshit that the software companies try and get away with. Kudos to damantione for shining a spotlight on this nonsense.

It's still copyright infringement.

I'm not sure what some people's major issue is with our EULA (which is very simple and quite generous in a number of ways). Virtually all commercial software is licensed in exactly the same manner, so unless you're going to use only F/OSS, you can't really single one company out and say you've had it with them for not giving the EULA prior to the purchase.

I'm sorry - but that was just a bunch of complete and idiotic BS you just posted.

Correct, this is why an EULA is totally unnecessary for protecting intellectual property.



I agree with you about the actual contents about the EULA. You are not bad guys. However, the very fact that an EULA is used hurts the customer his rights in various ways. It's simple: If I buy a product, I have automatically by law, my consumer rights. In the Netherlands that would be:
- The right of a good product
- The right that the product fullfills the expectations that were made
- The right of warranty

P.S.: (Unless I waive them, I am allowed to buy a product without warranty, if that is agreed between buyer and seller.)

P.P.S.: (Now as the sale was made in a US web shop, the sale is probably under US law, after which the copy was exported to the Netherlands, after which Dutch laws apply. I.e. I don't have the above consumer rights under Dutch law, but I'm sure US laws assign consumer rights as well.)

Now, if the product is not sold, none of these rights apply. The laws directly attaches them to the event of a "sale".

Another difference between license/sale is the rights I have as an owner (or just posessor in case of license). As an owner, I can let my girlfriend play with my computer and she can freely use my software that is on my computer. However, if I do not own the software and only posess it, this is different, I cannot decide to let her use your software. Compare with the television again, I can let anyone use my television as I see fit, however, if the television is not mine, I can't let anyone use the television as the owner did give me permission to his television, not anyone else.

Lastly, while the EULA itself is mostly very reasonable, there are a few things in it it is not allowed to do:
* Forbid reverse engineering. By law, at the moment you give me the right to bring the program on my screen, I also have the right to reverse engineer the program. It cannot be forbidden.
* Disclaim warranty. I have warranty on any product I buy unless I agreed otherwise at the moment of sale, simple as that.
* Disclaim damages. Under Dutch law this is one of the most illegal things you can state in a contract (which an EULA is) and has been a prime reason for judges to declare contracts unreasonable.

Not for games. The majority of games I own did not come with an EULA. The reason is simple: There are too much problems with them, like enforcing them at all in many countries, problems when selling games to children, which are allowed to purchase copyrighted works under responsibility of their parents, but not enter licensing agreements.

However, in general I am aware of that software is licensed in many cases, but still do not consider it a normal way of doing business. If it is clear during the sales process that I don't buy the software, there is nothing I can do about it. In cases where the software purchase is clearly a sale, like this one, I can do something about it, namely rejecting the EULA.

Correct, but know I made the point that I did buy the game. Namely I click on a button on this website called "purchase", not "license", and then "Buy this game" (what does buy mean?), and before I finish the transaction the word "license" never appears.

How can I not have bought the game if I did click on a button "buy this game"??

More relevant is the e-mail Stardock sent after my purchase, because this is legally valid proof of a sales agreement. It does not even contain the word "license", so I have bought the game.in a totally normal sales transaction with change of ownership.

If you download a game rip, you are violating a copyright. Sure you are then not under any EULA contract, but copyright violation is much worse offense than contract violation. Copyright violation is a criminal delict, contract violation only means you have dispute.

I understand and basically agree with the OP's "annoyance" at the idea of EULA's.

I view this the same for software, music and movies. The way I see it is there is the legality of such an "agreement" and then there's the realistic enforcability and the reality of the situation.

Basically EULA's notwithstanding I basically treat these things like I am actually buying something as opposed to renting it or otherwise purchasing a revokeable license to use it. What I believe I am buying is the right to use what I buy for my own use as I see fit.

I know this is not what companies proport to be selling if you read the EULA but I believe this is the reality of what's reasonably enforceable. I can't distribute it. I can't share it. I can't give it away. But otherwise as long as what I do with it doesn't reduce the ability of the company to sell it to someone else then I see no harm in copying it onto more than one PC that I might use or in moving it from one PC to another. Or making a backup CD so that in the future I could restore it if a hard drive dies or whatever.

Basically I feel that when I "buy" a piece of software, or a song or a movie then I can view or listen or use it as long as I want. I'm not entitled to "free" upgrades or fixes but if 20 years from now I want to play a game I bought 20 years ago then I think I should be able to play it.

I can't see how this attitude makes me a pirate but if it does then Yo, Ho, Ho and pass me that bottle of Rum.

This is what I view as the crux of the matter.

Companies develop software/music/movies/IP at considerable cost and can sell it for small cost on the assumption that they can sell the same thing to many people. I believe that anything that interfere's with a company's ability to achieve this is in some way stealing the company's rightful revenue. But as some folks have already mentioned these things seem to me to be fully covered under copyright infringement.

To the best of my knowledge the things I mentioned; copying to another machine and making a backup disk are explicitly allowed under Stardock's EULA. The kinds of things I find truly objectionable are things like EA's statement that once they define a program as "unsupported" I'm supposed to delete it from my hard drive and stop using it even though it would still work as it always has. This is kind of ludicrous since this is totally unenforceable unless we live in a police state where every piece of software "phones home" to indicate it's being used.

End user license agreements are ridiculous. I really don't understand why software companies are so adamant about including an agreement as part of their installation. I'm no lawyer, but I'd be surprised if anything outside the parameters set by copyright law could be upheld in a lawsuit, assuming it could even come to that. Hehe, like the software police are going to come to my door some day. I just ignore those license agreements and click through them. I do what I want with software I've purchased (within my legal right, of course) and couldn't care less what some EULA says. I haven't actually read GC2's EULA, but as far as I know, it's not restricted me in doing what I want with the software anyway.