Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie.

[Ben E Lou]

Look, people. I am fully aware of the fact that I am more of a letter-of-the-law guy than the vast majority of you, so I really do TRY my best to be understanding. However, when some clown with 3 posts from 2 years ago comes on here and tries to trade a game and I react, it is best to just deal with it. Push me too hard on this, and we'll have letter-of-the-law rules regarding piracy around here. Apparently, many of you don't know (or don't care) that selling or trading games is A DIRECT VIOLATION OF YOUR LICENSE AGREEMENT! I realize that trading is something that is generally accepted, and that's why I hold my breath and don't say anything, but do NOT push me on this.

I appreciate the fact that the complainers have reacted via PM, by the way, but rather than respond to each of you individually, I feel that I need to enlighten many of you publicly on this one, because there's obviously a great deal of ignorance (or lack of integriy, take your pick) out there.

Originally Posted by Civ4 License Agreement

LICENSE CONDITIONS

You agree not to:

(a) Commercially exploit the Software;

(b) Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign this Software, or any copies of this Software, without the express prior written consent of LICENSOR

Originally Posted by Scrablle Game On My Computer License Agreement

LIMITED LICENSE: You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way.

Originally Posted by Civ3 License Agreement

LIMITED LICENSE: You are entitled to download or install, and operate this Software solely for your own personal use, but may not sell or transfer reproductions of the Software or Documentation to other parties in any way. You may download or install, and operate one copy of the Software on a single terminal connected to a single computer. You may not network the Software or otherwise use it on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time.

I could list others, but y'all get the point. Basically, SOME companies allow transferring and/or selling of licenses only with direct written consent, while most, it appears, disallow it completely.

So, try this crap with a text sim around here, particularly ones by two guys I happen to like and respect like Arlie and Jim, then you WILL get punished harshly, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it.

And I'm serious, keep pushing me on my "inconsistency" on this, and you will get what you're asking for: 100% consistency on the matter, and the line will be drawn in accordance with the EULA that you people have agreed to.

If this doesn't apply to you, then sorry for the rant.

--Ben

[Airhog]

Those last two quotes ben, say you may not sell, copy, or transfer a reproduction of the game. They make no mention of the original game FWIW.

I think that first was is more murky IMHO.

Not trying to bust your balls or anything, just wanted to point that out.

[Joe]

the Dog has layeth the smacketh down!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I get the feeling I missed something somewhere.
That said, I'm now confused.

The Civ4 one I agree is very plain. Basically, you can't sell that one period according to the agreement.

But that's not how I read the other two.
Those seem to refer to "reproductions", not to the originals. I.E. don't copy the games/manuals & sell the bootlegs. But I don't see anything in what you quoted that restricts getting rid of a game you don't want anymore.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on board policy or anything -- I'm just taking advantage of the subject that's come up to figure out if I'm reading something wrong here or what, not as it relates to the board but as it relates to the games.

[Ben E Lou]

I am angry, and I copied the wrong sections of the last two.

from Civ3:
[quote]OWNERSHIP; COPYRIGHT: Title to the Software and the Documentation, and patents, copyrights and all other property rights applicable thereto, shall at all times remain solely and exclusively with Infogrames Interactive and its licensors, and You shall not take any action inconsistent with such title. The Software and the Documentation are protected by United States, Canadian and other applicable laws and by international treaty provisions. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Infogrames Interactive and its licensors.
OTHER RESTRICTIONS: You may not cause or permit the disclosure, copying, renting, licensing, sublicensing, leasing, dissemination or other distribution of the Software or the Documentation by any means or in any form, without the prior written consent of Infogrames Interactive. You may not modify, enhance, supplement, create derivative work from, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human readable form.
quote]Y'all get the idea.

[Raiders Army]

I didn't know it was a violation of the license agreement to trade or sell games. I thought it would've been okay to do that since EB Games does it all the time. Then again, I never read the License Agreement; I just hit I AGREE and NEXT. *shrug*

Learn something new every day.

[Airhog]

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?

[panerd]

I don't care at all that you locked the guy's post and had no intention on PMing you about it either. But I think you are misinterpreting something if you don't think you can trade or resell something you own. And if this is true then the software industry had pulled a major coup that no other industry I am aware of has established. Imagine if I couldn't sell my house or my car or my lamps!

[GreenMonster]

FOFC - Educating Morons Daily

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Airhog

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?

dola, is it because its listed under non FOF stuff...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by panerd

the software industry had pulled a major coup that no other industry I am aware of has established. Imagine if I couldn't sell my house or my car or my lamps!

Your reaction, I would think, would be why they would never prosecute individuals for doing it, but that still doesn't make it right by any means.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Airhog

I think the real issue is that it was a game made by one of our developers. We have a game trading thread and that isn't a problem is it?

...and I said this privately to several people. Make no mistake about it, I am pretty uncomfortable with having that thread, but I really am trying to be understanding about the matter.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I get the feeling I missed something somewhere.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=44968

[Barkeep49]

I'm confused about this as a legal issue. If this is true, how does Gamestop have a viable business off of this and how is it that ebay hasn't been slammed by the game makers? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. While I couldn't see the game makers going after an average gamer, these are businesses which can hardly be called small which are making profits off of this.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I didn't know it was a violation of the license agreement to trade or sell games. I thought it would've been okay to do that since EB Games does it all the time. Then again, I never read the License Agreement; I just hit I AGREE and NEXT. *shrug*

Maybe someone with a background in law could anwser this better than I. But is it legal for a company to sell you a product with a restriction that you cannot sell that item? Is it possible that software companies put that in there, but they have no legal means to do anything about it and if they did do something about it, they might lose in court?

If this law was really followed, it would illegal to simply buy someone a game for christmas or their birthday.

Now I do admit that it easier to reproduce electronic media, so it stands to reason that somone could buy the software, make a copy, and sell the original. I think the spirt of the intention is to stop that.

[Shepp]

Just because a lawyer sticks a stipulation in a licensing agreement doesn't mean that it would hold up in a civil hearing.

If someone is selling/trading bootleg copies of software that is clearly illegal.
However, if some one sells/trades software without retaining any copy of that software for their continued use, I can't see how there would be anything wrong with that.

It would be like saying once I purchase a book I cannot sell or trade that book.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Shepp

Just because a lawyer sticks a stipulation in a licensing agreement doesn't mean that it would hold up in a civil hearing.

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

Actually, I don't think that is true since it isn't part of the purchase contract. If they made you agree to the license before they sold you the game, it would have a little more weight. Having the license inside the box where you can't see it until after you've made the purchase makes it not part of the original purchase contract.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I'm confused about this as a legal issue. If this is true, how does Gamestop have a viable business off of this and how is it that ebay hasn't been slammed by the game makers? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. While I couldn't see the game makers going after an average gamer, these are businesses which can hardly be called small which are making profits off of this.

I actually think this is going to be the "next big thing" - game makers fighting back against the used game market. I think they have reluctantly been quiet on this for a while, but as the used game market increases, cutting into profits, you are going to see more game makers sneak in stuff like the CivIV license.

I believe it was Best Buy who announced they'd be expanding into the used game market, and that got quite a bit of grumbling from the game companies - they spend a lot of money to market, develop and distribute these game, and then get nothing when Best Buy buys and sells a used game. Now, personally, I don't think the EULA like the CivIV one is going to amount to more than a hill of beans, but, make no mistake, game developers WILL find a way to try to either a) cut down on the sale of used games or b) negotiate to get a piece of the used sale pie.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why game companies (and the RIAA for that matter) works so hard to try to stop piracy, but have been pretty ineffective at eliminating the used game/CD market, which probably amounts for a much more significant (and tangible) loss in revenue.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

don't get worked up over EULAs - they usually don't stand up in court.

[cody8200]

One note: Arles and co had a trading part of their forum at 400 sports for about 3 years where you could trade games. He sure didn't seem to mind as long as both liscenses were traded away.

[Barkeep49]

DD thanks for the background.

I think these liscense just go to show again that copyright laws have gone too far in protecting the companies rights rather than society's rights to innovations. I am scrupulous about following copyright, and have been for years, but this is just rediculous.

[Tekneek]

I wonder if some of these very restrictive EULAs would not stand up under legal scrutiny. Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you agree to something or not. If the clause is found to be illegal, you are not bound by it.

EDIT... Draft Dodger was thinking the same sort of thing.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

But here's the kicker. As the purchaser, you agreed to it.

Ben, FWIW, you may agree to something that's illegal - by definition, if it won't hold up in court, the agreement is null and void. I fail to see the crime here at all - this isn't even a fair use thing - rather, its trading a good you've purchased for another good. As long as you aren't doing the split license thing (which is blatantly illegal), its not a problem. As I mentioned- the buy every game you want option is fine for people who are earning money, but trading is a reasonable option for any smaller budget. Arlie and Jim are not entitled to protection above and beyond any other producer - and this board stopped being a FOF board a long time ago.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I am angry, and I copied the wrong sections of the last two.

from Civ3:

Y'all get the idea.

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.

[Shepp]

How many people actually read and comprehend these software licensing agreements?

If every civil agreement was proper and completely binding there would be quite a few unemployed attorneys out there.

[DanGarion]

Not to mention... A number of people her talk and post stories from other websites, talk about sports, etc. Do we contact the MLB or the owner before we post them now?

Taken directly from the MLB website.

The Website is owned by MLB Advanced Media, L.P. ("MLBAM"). All materials distributed in the Website (the "Materials") are either owned by or licensed to MLBAM. MLBAM and its licensors retain all proprietary rights to the Materials. Except for downloading one copy of the Materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial home use, you must not reproduce, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, perform or display the Materials without first obtaining the written permission of MLBAM. Materials must not be used in any unauthorized manner.

[BrianD]

Doing a little research I found the "First Sale Doctrine" which is an exception to Copyright law allowing the purchaser to transfer (sell, give away) a legally obtained copy of protected work without permission. According to the doctrine, this exception does not extend to recorded music or computer software.

US Copyright case law has held that consumers cannot make copies of the software, but they may resell what they own. Basically, the legallity of this issue is not certain.

http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.

Based on my recollection of SI's EULA, some of the editors and such that you can download from their website, or from their 'affiliates' would seem to be violations as well. It seems that most developers try to take a 'common sense' approach to this matter and don't mind allowing things that enhance the product...as long as it doesn't help people steal the product.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Not to mention... A number of people her talk and post stories from other websites, talk about sports, etc. Do we contact the MLB or the owner before we post them now?

Taken directly from the MLB website.

Facts are different, so we can discuss what happened in the football game without anyone's permission. Posting excerpts are different. Posting the full length stories is technically a violation of copyright law.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Based on my recollection of SI's EULA, some of the editors and such that you can download from their website, or from their 'affiliates' would seem to be violations as well. It seems that most developers try to take a 'common sense' approach to this matter and don't mind allowing things that enhance the product...as long as it doesn't help people steal the product.

Thats because mods usually enhance interest in their products and lead to more sales.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Shepp

How many people actually read and comprehend these software licensing agreements?

That doesn't make it right, even beyond the legal aspect.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Facts are different, so we can discuss what happened in the football game without anyone's permission. Posting excerpts are different. Posting the full length stories is technically a violation of copyright law.

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by dangarion

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

I think that's one of the things SkyDog was referring to when he says that he tries to be tolerant of people who aren't quite as by the book as he is.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Ben, FWIW, you may agree to something that's illegal - by definition, if it won't hold up in court, the agreement is null and void.

That's not the point. If I agree to it, I'm going to try my best to stick to it. Period.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dangarion

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them. Like I said from the start, if I get pushed too far on this--I know myself all too well--we'll be obeying the letter of the law on that stuff, too.

[Tekneek]

If developers don't want people re-selling/trading their product, develop/produce something that people want to keep forever. Don't use creative legal maneuvers to make up for the fact that you produced a game that does not have sufficient "re-playability" or at least establishes a "loyalty" with the customer that makes them want to hold onto it.

If people are trading/selling too many of your games (in your opinion), find out why they don't want to keep your game and try to improve that area for future releases.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Airhog

If this law was really followed, it would illegal to simply buy someone a game for christmas or their birthday.

The EULA does not apply to the buyer of the game, it applies to the installer of the game. IOW, if you bought a game for someone for their birthday, since you never installed the game on your computer (or opened the box), the EULA does not apply to you. It only applies to the person installing the game on their computer.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them. Like I said from the start, if I get pushed too far on this--I know myself all too well--we'll be obeying the letter of the law on that stuff, too.

Ben,

I fully respect what you do on these boards. I've been in your situation for well over 5 years with my own websites and message boards I run. I was just playing devil's advocate. I could see that if the developer of either of the games contacted you about it you would lock the thread, but I didn't see any harm in the initial post, nor reasoning for why he was banned. Either way, I'm done discussing it.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...and I said this privately to several people. Make no mistake about it, I am pretty uncomfortable with having that thread, but I really am trying to be understanding about the matter.

oh, the heck with it. NO need to raise SD's blood pressure.

I think there have been FAR worse problems on this board not dealt with than this and I like Skydog and have always been supportive of him.

We'll just agree to disagree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Ebay currently has used copies of Civilization IV on it. A ton of em actually. I would think their lawyers would be aware of what is and isn't legal.

IMO, you're confusing what's "legal" with what's generally "ignored".

You can usually find promo copies (i.e. radio station copies) of music on eBay too, but selling those is highly illegal (and has been prosecuted on at least a few occasions over the years).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dangarion

So we need to start policing the forums for full length stories being posted.

This is the one copyright violation that I'm pretty regularly guilty of, and yeah, it probably should be policed more stringently here than it is. I've been a part of at least two forums that did get "lawyer letters" about it & they were both smaller than FOFC. (Luckily/happily, I wasn't the cause of the letters, I used to be a lot more particular about posting full stories than I've been for the past year or so).

[Rizon]

I hope I'm not violating any copyright law by posting this

Copyright Law of the United States of America
Chapter 1
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if —

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions. — For purposes of this section —

(1) the “maintenance” of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the “repair” of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I actually think this is going to be the "next big thing" - game makers fighting back against the used game market. I think they have reluctantly been quiet on this for a while, but as the used game market increases, cutting into profits, you are going to see more game makers sneak in stuff like the CivIV license.

I believe it was Best Buy who announced they'd be expanding into the used game market, and that got quite a bit of grumbling from the game companies - they spend a lot of money to market, develop and distribute these game, and then get nothing when Best Buy buys and sells a used game. Now, personally, I don't think the EULA like the CivIV one is going to amount to more than a hill of beans, but, make no mistake, game developers WILL find a way to try to either a) cut down on the sale of used games or b) negotiate to get a piece of the used sale pie.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why game companies (and the RIAA for that matter) works so hard to try to stop piracy, but have been pretty ineffective at eliminating the used game/CD market, which probably amounts for a much more significant (and tangible) loss in revenue.

I doubt they'll be effective. Textbook publishing companies have been trying to combat the re-selling of textbooks for years and the best solution is to come out with a different new edition every year. I don't see why softwarre companies would be any different legally, EULAs or not.

[Buccaneer]

Rizon, no, what you posted is a matter of public record and freely available under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Honolulu Blue]

I know the Dawg didn't ask me, but I'm more concerned about the posting of full articles than the selling/trading of games.

IMO, if you have the CD/DVD, the license, and all the materials from a game, you should be able to dispose them as you want - including selling - as long as the game is unlicensed from all places it was installed and there are no traces left. Online distributed games are another story, one which I haven't thought through thoroughly.

You can use small excerprts/quotations from any written material under the "Fair Use" exception to copyright law. I always do that and add a link to the original article or Web site whenever I find an article of interest.

The one exception is press releases - those are written to be distributed widely, so I have no qualms about using them in their entirety.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Of course if you read that correctly I guess we should be more stern regarding creating modifications for games.

I'm really going to miss primelord and his real player files once he's banned.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Doing a little research I found the "First Sale Doctrine" which is an exception to Copyright law allowing the purchaser to transfer (sell, give away) a legally obtained copy of protected work without permission. According to the doctrine, this exception does not extend to recorded music or computer software.

US Copyright case law has held that consumers cannot make copies of the software, but they may resell what they own. Basically, the legallity of this issue is not certain.

http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine

It seems logical that the First Sale Doctrine, which is firmly and indisputably established in copyright law, should govern computer games just as it governs books and CDs. I'm not sure that EULAs could be legally used to get around this. There are all kinds of legally unenforceable provisions corporations write into agreements. But it would probably take a lawyer specializing in copyright law to give a definitive answer.

[Ben E Lou]

Geez. Did the jbmagic-I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-I-read virus infect all of you today????

THE ISSUE I HAVE IS NOT WITH THE LEGALITY. IT IS WITH AGREEING TO THE EULA, AND THEN VIOLATING IT!!! It shows a stunning lack of integrity. How difficult is that to comprehend? You are not going to persuade me differently. By continuing to argue over it, joke about it, or anything else, you will only be increasing the odds that I'll be convicted enough about it to act. Read the thread title, people. JUST TRUST ME when I say that it is best for your enjoyment of FOFC that I am able to continue to quietly ignore the things that disturb me.

[Maple Leafs]

I work for a software company and am about as "by the book" on copyright issues as any around here, but this seems like a gross over-reaction to me. Even if you want to argue that software EULAs are legally enforcable (shaky ground) or that there's some sort of bigger moral issue at play (even shakier), was it really necessary to ban the guy who posted the original thread?

Lock the thread if you want, lecture the masses if you feel the need, but to ban a guy for doing something that 99% of software users wouldn't realize was even a problem? Wouldn't a warning have been enough?