IMPORTANT: What a "license" actually means, and why it matters. (+More)

[The One Free Man]

Hey, all!

So I've been noticing a rise in some misinformation over the years regarding what is okay or not okay for companies to do. While I've mentioned in a couple threads some key points, I thought I would put everything in one big thread to help provide better information. Unfortunately, people are great at repeating things that they heard about, without ever actually understanding any of it. For example, people would often say "you signed a ToS/EULA", without actually understanding the legality of a ToS/EULA, or how "you're licensed, not sold, a game", without understanding what it actually means to obtain a "license" to a game.

After spending a lot of time doing as much research as I can, talking with lawyers internationally, especially as I continue to spread the word on Ross Scott's "Stop Killing Games" campaign, I would like to clear the air a bit on what everything means.

SECTION I - What is a license?

Just so you're aware, all games, including physical ones from back in the day, were considered "licenses". If you bought and registered a boxed copy of some software, that was your license to the software.

This is not anything new. Even with the rise in digital content, the same rules have always applied. A copy of software of any kind, whether it be digital or physical, is a "license". You don't own the rights to the game itself, the company does. That's the real reason why it's called a "license". Because you're not buying the game, you're buying a copy of an instance of that game. So you don't have rights to the game because that's copyright/IP-related stuff. But, and this is important, you do have rights to your copy/to that license of the game that you purchased.

But more importantly, it doesn't matter if it's a license, because it's still a perpetual license. Perpetual licenses, just like when you bought CD-ROMS back in the day, do not expire. It doesn't matter if it it's a license, because it's still a license that shalt not expire, unlike a F2P, rented, or subscription-based "Game As A Service", which The Crew series is unfortunately not. Especially because it is not sold or marketed as such. It's marketed and sold as a good that you purchase outright to own a copy that's yours to keep and yours alone, just like any other game you buy at retail. Even if the disc states that the game requires an online connection, for most games that often just meant you'd need a connection to play multiplayer, and the game is still playable offline via singleplayer. The terms of service don't even state a shutdown date, just that it'll happen at some point in the future. What's worse, is that the only way people could even find out about this date was when Ubisoft announced it on their website. The terms of service never changed to reflect this new date, nor were players actually notified of this change in terms past the point of sale, thus not allowing you to agree to the new terms, and nothing was mentioned in-game that the shutdown would happen at a specified date. So if you never saw that announcement on their website, nor news articles on it, you'd have no way of actually knowing. Even when the game finally shut down, you just got a generic error code and not "The game's servers are shut down, thanks for playing!" Which would confuse a lot of people.

When you purchase a game, you are given a CD to install the game, and that CD has a CD key. That key is registered under your information and grants you access to your copy of the game. Either that, or you have proof you own the key of that game, and then the key is how you get access. And you own your copy, because the key and information tied to it, as well as the receipt of purchase, are your proof of ownership. And that is your "license" to the game.

It's no different than buying a car. If you go to a dealer and purchase a vehicle in the United States, it comes with a title. That title is a document that has information; VIN number, license plate (if applicable), make, model, year, issue date, etc. And all of that information is tied to your name and address. And that documentation is your proof, or "license", to own that car. You don't own the rights to the Chevrolet Impala branding, namesake, and manufacturing process. You just own the specific instance of a red Impala that you bought from your dealer. And the title would be your proof of ownership of that specific Impala and its VIN number. Not any other Impala, just that specific one you drove off the lot.

The same rules from back then still apply today. Which means that revoking access to your copy would be considered illegal.

SECTION II - What does this mean?

Despite what you may think, the only real reason a company can legally revoke access to your license is if you were using your copy to commit a criminal offense, primarily distributing/sharing it and/or making copies of your copy for others to use. But that's pretty much about it.

So it's unfortunately rather bogus when people complain that you're buying a license, or being licensed a good, because this has always been the case and isn't anything new. Plus, it's still illegal if that gets taken from you.

SECTION III - But what about the Terms of Service (ToS) or End User License Agreement (EULA) that I signed?

Unfortunately, a ToS or EULA is not a legally-binding document. Nothing is above the law. In the United States... it's complicated. The United States isn't exactly very consumer-friendly, and I think this is why so many people often are confused about the real legal power of a license agreement.

The only reason companies have been able to do what they please and weasel out by using the ToS agreement excuse is actually because this has never been properly challenged by the law. Ross Scott even says so himself in his video talking about the campaign. For some reason, pretty much nobody until now has actually attempted to contact government courts or consumer protection organizations regarding this practice. Germany has some organizations regarding consumer protection laws, but according to Ross, none of them really know what to do at the moment because this is the first time that they're hearing about such an issue. While I'm sure something will happen eventually, this is exactly why it's important to expose these scummy corporate practices as much as possible. Because you can't automatically expect organizations and governments to know about this stuff. I'd argue that if some countries knew about Ubisoft's plans and intentions years ago, this probably may have been long bit in the butt by now.

A ToS does not mean anything period. Or can only mean so much. You can say "you don't own anything" all you want. Doesn't matter, don't care. A company cannot take away a game from you just because they feel like it. Now, if they banned you or something for hacking the game or cheating, that's one thing, and most games will still let you play the game offline when you're banned anyways. But something like shutting down servers has nothing to do with the consumers. This is something entirely out of our control as players. Thus, making this illegal.

Would you be mad if you bought Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 for the PS2 back in the day, and an Electronic Arts representative came by your house to break it in half so you could no longer play it one day? You'd likely say, "Well obviously yes." Well the thing is, is that digital goods are no different in the slightest (see Section I above).

Yes, sometimes companies can take things away from you, but it's not "for whatever reason" like they claim. It must be within reason, and usually has something to do with the fault of the end user. Not because the company itself screwed up.

It's so pointless to bring up the ToS and that we don't own anything. Yeah. We do. Doesn't matter what they say. We do own this. We don't own the intellectual rights and property of the game itself, but we own our license. We paid for an instance/a copy of the game with a non-expiring perpetual license. If you buy a disc, you're free to do whatever you want with the contents of that disc. All except for copying/distributing the disc's contents. That's piracy, and that's a whole different story altogether. But everything else, you can do what you please.

In terms of, say, Valve and Steam, if you own a Steam account, they can take your account away for violating their rules (though even then I'm pretty it takes a lot to actually get your account banned to the point you can't access your games), primarily something that's done more so if the user does something that would be considered as a criminal offense. They cannot take your account away just because they feel like it. In other words it has to be something on your end. Not on theirs. How many delisted games are there on here that you can still download and play if they're in your library? I have so many games in my library that are so old, that Steam doesn't even mention them anywhere besides my library. The game is completely nuked. Most games that are delisted will still have a Steam Community and a direct link to the store page, but some of my games don't have anything period. And yet, despite this, nothing is stopping me from still installing the game in the Steam client and playing the game whenever I feel like it.

Ubisoft could theoretically, while still illegal in most circumstances, take a game away from us, but we'd have to be breaking their guidelines in order for that to happen. So that's a pretty terrible excuse because having them shut down servers does not equal us violating their terms. Companies can revoke access to you for any reason, but that reason still has to involve you breaking the terms in the first place. That's what they actually mean by "any reason". Again, that doesn't mean "just because they feel like it". It legally cannot mean that. They mean "breaking the terms given to you in any way, shape or form".

It's no different than how in the United States, stores have the right to refuse service to anyone. But legally-speaking, they can't actually just mean "anyone", because that would be discriminatory. You can't necessarily be refused service for just existing, but you can be refused service if you're being a jerk to the employees or other customers. Or other disruptive things like that. The store actually needs a reason that was provoked by you, the consumer.

But even with all of that said and done, they still can't legally do much. If you're not performing illegal actions nor permitting a criminal offense such as piracy using your copy of the game that they licensed to you, Ubisoft as a company is still subject to law and can't really do much against you legally-speaking. Like I said, companies can sometimes do stuff regarding banning, but overall they still only have so much power, and sometimes your license still isn't being revoked. Unfortunately, it's a large legal gray area, and there simply isn't enough proper information on the matter.

SECTION IV - Consumer Rights

You as a consumer have rights. It might be hard to believe, but you have them. Even in the United States, where law is lawless, you still have some rights, and in some cases, we are slowly drip-feeding in new consumer protection laws thanks to wonderful people such as Louis Rossman. But more importantly, there are organizations, some international even, who can help you practice those rights. And this is why providing as much exposure on the matter is such a big deal. As stated before, there's governments and organizations who hadn't even heard about this problem until now. Companies have been able to do things under the radar for so long simply because nobody actually took the chance to speak up about it.

The most important aspect of it is being provided the correct information. Ross Scott often uses the analogy of a "boiling frog", where a frog will jump out if placed in boiling hot water, but if it is already in the water before it slowly gets heated, it won't notice the subtle temperature change and will likely die. We need to act on this as soon as we possible can, before it gets to a point where it's too late. We need to nip it in the bud as soon as possible. As Ross Scott has stated, if this remains unchanged, this may affect other things besides video games; medical devices, agricultural equipment, etc. And in some ways, this already has (ex. John Deere). But without the correct information, individuals can not make a decision, especially a well-educated decision. People are often quick to throw their hands up and surrender because of some saying they've heard about and repeated, without actually realizing what it means. Which is why I wanted to do my part in helping to explain what's actually going on, and why it matters.

Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to ask below. But I must remind you to keep it civil, and I likely won't give you the satisfaction of me engaging in discussion if you're acting immaturely. I'm sorry in advance that I couldn't keep this explanation brief, but unfortunately there's just so much to cover here, especially when laws are too complex to simplify. Anyone is welcome to attempt a TL;DR/ADHD version of this thread if they so wish.

If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if folks can help spread the word on this, to inform more people on the matter everywhere you can, to give people better insight on the matter so that less people are quick to repeat what they've been told when it just... ultimately isn't true. Like Ross said, what's the point is us having rights if we have to keep signing them away anyways? Kind of ruins the whole point of rights, yeah?

[RaTcHeT302]

I DONT CARE, THIS IS A SCAM, MY GAME IS DEAD THATS ALL THAT MATTERS AAAAH

[The One Free Man]

You think I don't know that? I'm well aware of that and this post explains exactly why you're correct.

The reason I made this post is so that more people have a better and more proper understanding of things, which means more people will have a reason to support our campaign to fight against this. So people don't look at the campaign and immediately think it's dead in the water because of some excuse like "oh you signed your rights away" or something, you know?

[Lordecalibre]

if buying is not possessing, piracy is not stealing !

[The One Free Man]

Originally posted by Lordecalibre:

if buying is not possessing, piracy is not stealing !

You know, people say this a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything if a game is online-only anyways. :/

Like it wouldn't apply to The Crew because it never got cracked in the last 9 or 10 years it's been online, and still hasn't. We don't even know if our fan made offline patch is going to actually work or not when it's all said and done.

So... and even Ross said this in a monthly chat, that saying pretty much has no merit here, as piracy is quite literally off the table and isn't even possible as of currently. And the same goes for other games. I'm pretty The Crew 2 and Motorfest won't even be crackable with an offline patch because they use BattlEye.

Overall, illegal scummy business practices do not justify illegal criminal offenses. I would rather us at least focus on taking Ubisoft to international courts first via our campaign since they're doing illegal things, before we even begin to consider some other more radical option.

[ZukunftGamer]

Just like Square Enix i boycott them, now im doing with ubi soft, not spending anymore money on their games. Why in the hell would they make a game like the crew and not make it offline. all that effort just to say oh well, its gone.

dummies.

[cyxceven]

Originally posted by The One Free Man:

Originally posted by Lordecalibre:

if buying is not possessing, piracy is not stealing !

You know, people say this a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything if a game is online-only anyways. :/

Like it wouldn't apply to The Crew because it never got cracked in the last 9 or 10 years it's been online, and still hasn't. We don't even know if our fan made offline patch is going to actually work or not when it's all said and done.

So... and even Ross said this in a monthly chat, that saying pretty much has no merit here, as piracy is quite literally off the table and isn't even possible as of currently. And the same goes for other games. I'm pretty The Crew 2 and Motorfest won't even be crackable with an offline patch because they use BattlEye.

Overall, illegal scummy business practices do not justify illegal criminal offenses. I would rather us at least focus on taking Ubisoft to international courts first via our campaign since they're doing illegal things, before we even begin to consider some other more radical option.

Pirating it is OK, as it is now abandonware. Unless you can show me legal precedent with a ruling saying possession of abandonware is illegal. I'd love to know.

[The One Free Man]

Originally posted by cyxceven:

Pirating it is OK, as it is now abandonware. Unless you can show me legal precedent with a ruling saying possession of abandonware is illegal. I'd love to know.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the game is LITERALLY uncrackable as of currently. So pirating isn't a physical option yet. But the problem is that, no, it's not ever explicitly mentioned regarding abandonware and piracy. But the law can interpret that in many ways, and some might even say that it can be considered illegal. I mean people have been DMCA'd all the time for example even over things like abandonware, so it's not nearly as full-proof as you might think. Especially because even if something's abandonware, the company still owns the franchise and properties thanks to trademarks and copyright. So they can still definitely take you down for other, more indirect reasons that still legally apply.

All I'm saying is to just... hold back for a while, alright? Just at least until we can figure out a proper plan here or to see how things go. SKG is just starting out. I don't want SKG to get a bad rep or something over abandonware or piracy-related things, or to even give companies another reason to paint the campaign in a bad light or double-down on what they're doing because they feel it's justified. That's all. We're still just trying to wait and see what happens, and weigh all of our explicitly legal options first.

Believe me, if something comes up where piracy is a real and properly justified choice, assuming The Crew ever even physically achieves a crackable state, you'll be the first to know.

[jonPS]

Anyone know of the pirate version ?

[The One Free Man]

Originally posted by jonPS:

Anyone know of the pirate version ?

No, because one doesn't exist. That online-only DRM prevented literally anybody from cracking it.

[Demonsouls1993]

Originally posted by The One Free Man:

Originally posted by Lordecalibre:

if buying is not possessing, piracy is not stealing !

You know, people say this a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything if a game is online-only anyways. :/

Like it wouldn't apply to The Crew because it never got cracked in the last 9 or 10 years it's been online, and still hasn't. We don't even know if our fan made offline patch is going to actually work or not when it's all said and done.

So... and even Ross said this in a monthly chat, that saying pretty much has no merit here, as piracy is quite literally off the table and isn't even possible as of currently. And the same goes for other games. I'm pretty The Crew 2 and Motorfest won't even be crackable with an offline patch because they use BattlEye.

Overall, illegal scummy business practices do not justify illegal criminal offenses. I would rather us at least focus on taking Ubisoft to international courts first via our campaign since they're doing illegal things, before we even begin to consider some other more radical option.

yet your defending scammysoft with that statement

[The One Free Man]

Originally posted by Demonsouls1993:

yet your defending scammysoft with that statement

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but sure!

If you'd like to crack the game yourself, don't let me stop you! :) You guys are clearly confident in cracking knowledge, so I trust that you guys will crack The Crew no problem. Just don't expect any assistance from SKG while you're doing it, as we have no plans at the moment of risking legal hot water.

I don't have to support "ScammySoft" to not want to take risks that could jeopardize the whole point of this campaign. We have several legal options at our disposal, whether you support piracy or not is not of my concern. I just want to exhaust all other options first before doing anything else. And as I said, even Ross said himself how that statement has no merit, so you're essentially saying Ross supports Ubisoft too, and he's the one who started this whole campaign in the first place.

It's like they say, there's a difference between protesting and rioting. Which do you think is going to be more likely to make legislative changes?

[The One Free Man]

I wish I had a better place to put this post so that more people can see it/so it can get more coverage.

[v00d00m4n]

So i started the game now to check if i at least can still run it offline with some unofficial patches later, but i got "ACTIVATE A KEY" window in Ubisoft connect, despite 2 copies (Russian and World Wide) was activated and existed on my Ubisoft account and despite one of two activations is tied to my steam account!!!!

So they did not just shut down servers, they removed purchased game and all the the DLC i paid for from Ubisoft connect (Uplay) account?

Did it happen to everyone?

This is absolute scam and illegal action!

We must not just sue Ubisoft in every country they operates, but we must enforce a new laws that forbidds doing such things to game with discontinued support and forces every company that already discontinued any game - release a patch that allows to play offline and without any ties to any DRM and with ability to enter custom master server adressed and allow a direct ip Server-clien and P2P connections to keep online features working without publisher's servers, release entire source code of game with every middleware required to compile and run it properly, release binary and source codes of all server side software to allow users to run their own servers.

Also this law must enforce publishers to release ENTIRE non altered (even if it has commercia middleware, LAW IS ABOUT LICENSE AGREEMENTS) source code and source assets of every sold game and software in about 2-4 years since release, and provide it to every owner not only online but also by delivering copy of source code and source assets on durable non electricty dependand (ie - optical disks, not flash drives) physical media to every owner of game who claimed such copy by officially contacting publisher's support with demand for sources! Sources must include all middleware sources and sources of all related online infrastructure required to compile and run the source of game without alteration and with 100% working features offline and online and also sources of all the toolchains required to produce and compile assets.


This must be forced by law even if game is actively supported with no exceptions! Because only by having source codes and source assets we can fully preserve games and other software. And usually after 2-4 years sales of any game and software getting very low since initial release and would not hurt any company financially.

Also such law must apply even to already released old games! All the source codes and source assets (not just codes) of all games that was released 2-4 years ago or longer must be forced to be released to public! This law also should prevail and override any license agreements with third parties (not just middleware creators but also a copyright owners of music and so on, their copyrights should not prevent from releasing their materials as part of source codes and assets in full and complete initial form and content of game at date of release or purchase).

If the game is tied to specific hardware all hardwre specs, middleware, api and skd should be released to public as well 2-4 years since release of hardware and it should be allowed to create emulation of such harware and use its binaries and sources for sake of preservation of software that requires such hardware to run.

Enough if enough! If publishers dont care to preserve their games and gaming platforms - they must be forced by law to lets us do it and to do so they must be forced to provide us every piece of source assets, tools and code of engine and game itselft that is needed to preserve full game with 100% features and to make unofficial patches and ports of game on any possible future platforms, to replace discontinued platforms.

Also in case of termination of company or in case of selling company to new onwer all sources must be released even if less than 2-4 years passed since release! In case of delisting of software from any platform sources and final DRM free and custom servers capable patches must be released! And delisting itself should not restrict buying and playing game on any platforms, instead if should be made available for free to everyone to download and play on every platforms, with abandoware status. And all the additional content ever released on any platform should be made available for free on all platforms, even licensed by third parties! Time limited licensing of content should be forbridden and all existing time limited licenses should be forced by laws to be plolonged forever for existing products (so games could not dissapear just because license of some music track or some brand got expired, no expiration should ever happen, if you gave your license for using something in some game or movie or whatever it is - it should be remain there forever!).

Demand creation of such a software (games included) preservation law from your local goverment!

What you paid for, even digital, must remains forever yours and all means necessary should be provided so you can always use it with 100% functionality you paid for even years after, and you should be able to do anything with it like you can with physical objects, like for example giving it out to your grandkids and make it possible for them to use your property even centruies after, like you can with books that was released centuries ago, you can still read them! Games even digital must be capable of lasting forever too, and only source assets, source codes and even full hardware specs and all the middleware sources and documents required to run (or port to newer platforms) all poccessed games or other software even centurty later - must be included and provided with games and other software! If not on date of release, than at least 2-4 years later when sales are not significant anymore.

All the closed source codes and assets must be forced by law to become open source 2-4 years since release of any commercial product and must have provided physical optical copy of sources even to digitally purchased software! This is is the only way we can preserve games and software for future!

[The One Free Man]

Yeah Voodoo, it's happening to a lot of people. Ubisoft got wind of the SKG campaign and now they're trying to perform damage control and screw people over even more. Mine hasn't been revoked yet though. What I need you to do is look for your receipts or proof of purchase, and HOLD ONTO it. Whether that's screenshotting it, saving an email, whatever. It might be needed later.

I'd recommend you join the Discord server we've got (we're working on the offline patch and helping with Ross's SKG campaign). We MIGHT be able to help. They said in the server to DM @zomb1e5 if your license is getting revoked. I'm guessing he's trying to get as much information as possible and see how many people are being affected.
https://discord.gg/7G6MjqFhjc

Trust me, Ubisoft IS getting taken to court.

[ℤ𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕤]

Both of my copies on steam and upay have been revoked.