"The EULA is not law" (apparently)

[Tchannie]

I'm really fed up with this argument, and so here you have it, from a Law student doing English Law at school (and currently covering Contract Law):

Contract Law, using the EULA as a perfectly legitimate example



EAxis gives you a list of Terms and Conditions; the EULA.
You click "OK".
This is a Contract. You have just agreed to abide by their rules.
Breaking this contract gives the other party cause to sue you. The courts see if it's a minor breach or a major breach (it depends on how you see it, but I'm supposing selling CC is a minor breach), and you are legally bound to pay them what the judge sees fit. This could be, for example, every last penny you got from selling your content--or even more.




So maybe the EULA on its own isn't law, but once you've agreed to it, it becomes law.








I love being a Law student.

[KingElizabethI]

And you can't install the sims OR make an EA account without agreeing, which means unless paysite creators are using illegal means to install their games, THEY ARE HELD UNDER TEH EULA!

[Pescado]

The flaw with EULAe as binding contracts is that they're sealed inside the box, when you can't open, so you have no real idea what it says until you buy and open it, by which time you can no longer return the item, so you're stuck with it. This thus forms the basis under which EULAe could be potentially invalidated, as contracts of adhesion: You are essentially forced into agreeing, and have no real option to refuse, unless you want to end up having just bought a $50 doorstop.

Conversely, it is similarly possible to click OK and not have actually agreed to it. There is a little program that works on this principle, allowing you to, essentially, hack the EULA text to say anything you wish, whereupon you can then agree to it. This text, of course, becomes nonbinding on anyone, as EA never saw or agreed to that, but now you're in the program without having ever accepted anything.

Ultimately, EULAe are at best shaky when interpreted as contracts, which is why no lawsuit has ever been filed using EULAe as a case. Therefore, while it may be possible to get away with doing something that is AGAINST it, as paysites do, at the same time, one can stick to the particular clause, that of free distribution, and THAT will not be overturned as it's explicitly permitted. As EA claims rights over all content, and the package format, and has explicitly permitted such sharing in their admittedly questionable document, they nonetheless cannot go after people who follow it without repudiating their own document. If a EULA says you may do something, it most certainly means it. If it says you may not, this is more questionable. So while paysites are fixated on the clause that they CAN'T do something, which may or may not be upholdable, our activities focus on what it says we *CAN* do, which certainly means it's valid.

[OneEyedWillie]

(no legalese here) Just look at the exchange as a perfect example though, pay items are available there at any given time.....and since Pets, sim2packs have included meshes, thus inferring that it's meant to be freely shared resources

[SnarkyShark]

The flaw with EULAe as binding contracts is that they're sealed inside the box, when you can't open, so you have no real idea what it says until you buy and open it, by which time you can no longer return the item, so you're stuck with it. This thus forms the basis under which EULAe could be potentially invalidated, as contracts of adhesion: You are essentially forced into agreeing, and have no real option to refuse, unless you want to end up having just bought a $50 doorstop.

Hopefully, that argument would fall apart if you buy and install more than one Sims game and/or expansion (and it can reasonably assumed that many custom content creators do). After purchasing and installing the first, you really have no reason to believe that you won't, once again,  have to agree to EA's terms of use.

[Anouk]

EA: You broke my EULA. Me sue.

Paysite: No-one cares. EULA's legality is shaky at best.

EA: Me no need EULA. Me will sue you on copyrights.

Paysite: ...  ....

EA: Owned

[Hecubus]

Um....this is news?

[Ensign EO]

I think she just likes stating threads.  :wink:

"You are essentially forced into agreeing, and have no real option to refuse, unless you want to end up having just bought a $50 doorstop."

You could always give it to someone else and explain why you don't want it (which would also explain why the box was already open).

[Tchannie]

No, this isn't news, I'm perfectly aware of this. But I figure that more people read a new post saying old information than read, say, Paden's post in the NeptuneSuzy thread saying this (I wrote this before I read her post though). They say the same things but I wanted to draw more people's attention to it. It's driving me mad that people use that argument all the time.


And even if you agree to it blindly, you're still agreeing.

[HawkGirl]

The flaw with EULAe as binding contracts is that they're sealed inside the box, when you can't open, so you have no real idea what it says until you buy and open it, by which time you can no longer return the item, so you're stuck with it. This thus forms the basis under which EULAe could be potentially invalidated, as contracts of adhesion: You are essentially forced into agreeing, and have no real option to refuse, unless you want to end up having just bought a $50 doorstop.

Conversely, it is similarly possible to click OK and not have actually agreed to it. There is a little program that works on this principle, allowing you to, essentially, hack the EULA text to say anything you wish, whereupon you can then agree to it. This text, of course, becomes nonbinding on anyone, as EA never saw or agreed to that, but now you're in the program without having ever accepted anything.

Ultimately, EULAe are at best shaky when interpreted as contracts, which is why no lawsuit has ever been filed using EULAe as a case. Therefore, while it may be possible to get away with doing something that is AGAINST it, as paysites do, at the same time, one can stick to the particular clause, that of free distribution, and THAT will not be overturned as it's explicitly permitted. As EA claims rights over all content, and the package format, and has explicitly permitted such sharing in their admittedly questionable document, they nonetheless cannot go after people who follow it without repudiating their own document. If a EULA says you may do something, it most certainly means it. If it says you may not, this is more questionable. So while paysites are fixated on the clause that they CAN'T do something, which may or may not be upholdable, our activities focus on what it says we *CAN* do, which certainly means it's valid.

Pes in the state of CA, EA has to refund your money if you disagree with their contract. It's the law and they are governed by the laws of CA. It also tells you in that long drawn out thing how to get your money back and where to ship it. I just did a fresh install on my grandbabies new pc and read that thing word for word. With a fresh open from the box, because so many were saying it wasn't there when they did a re-install. Which tells me that contract then gets stored someplace on our pc that isn't affected by uninstalls/reinstalls. It was there on a first install. So there is no excuse, because if the store won't refund your money. EA will, even if it's opened. Well of course unless they use that little program you were talking about, but how many would even think to use it to alter EA's contract? Less than 1 percent of a percent?BTW Walmart has all the EP's and most of the funpacks for less than $20 dollars now. I only paid 14.99 for her new base game since she destroyed the other one. So quit paying 50 bucks for it.

[Pescado]

Pes in the state of CA, EA has to refund your money if you disagree with their contract. It's the law and they are governed by the laws of CA.

This may be so, but it is also largely a dodge clause. Those who are *NOT* in CA will find it very impractical to actually attempt a return. If you were to actually attempt to follow those directions, you would very likely be given an extended runaround, much like those mail-in rebates which may or may not ever actually materialize. What's more, shipping it back for a refund may cost more than the item is worth!

[Zazazu]

Hm. Thing is, we aren't talking about violating the EULA to use the game as shipped. We're talking about something that comes after the game is shipped and is beyond the software capabilities as created by Maxis/EA. One would think the distinction is important.

One also doesn't have a law degree, just likes smacking people, so one is just talking out of her ass.