Questionable legality in EULA of a game hosted on Steam (Exanima)

[Neo-Dodging Responsibilities]

In the EULA, the game states:
3.6 The Licensee must provide to the Licensor, or procure for the Licensee, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, reasonable access to:
(a) any Computers and/or media upon which the Software is stored, installed or used; and
(b) any premises at which any such Computer and/or media is situated from time to time, for the purpose of the investigating whether the Licensee is complying with the terms of this EULA.

What? Access to my home and my computer? Does Steam not read through the EULA of games they host?

[rawWwRrr]

No one from Exanima is going to show up at your house and demand access to your computer.

[the.angelhunter]

Here's a thread from 2017, where the developer responds on the EULA: https://steamcommunity.com/app/362490/discussions/0/1354868867719525358/

Comes down to it being a standard copy/paste, emphasis on the usage of reasonable, and "It's important to understand that such clauses are not directed at typical users, but rather serious abuse of the product that grossly violate licensing terms, e.g. providing large scale access to the product."

As far I know Steam doesn't read EULA by default, and might only look at it when it's reported

[Neo-Dodging Responsibilities]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από rawWwRrr:

No one from Exanima is going to show up at your house and demand access to your computer.

That doesn't matter.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από the.angelhunter:

Here's a thread from 2017, where the developer responds on the EULA: https://steamcommunity.com/app/362490/discussions/0/1354868867719525358/

Comes down to it being a standard copy/paste, emphasis on the usage of reasonable, and "It's important to understand that such clauses are not directed at typical users, but rather serious abuse of the product that grossly violate licensing terms, e.g. providing large scale access to the product."

As far I know Steam doesn't read EULA by default, and might only look at it when it's reported

I understand they addressed it and admitted it was something they just pulled from some website with different contract agreements, yet it needs to be changed. They may intend for it to be for pirating, but it does apply to everyone regardless. Even if there is no ill intent, I simply do not know what a stranger would do, given an agreement like this. Even for its intended group, it still isn't legal.

[nullable]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από USS Liberty:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από rawWwRrr:

No one from Exanima is going to show up at your house and demand access to your computer.

That doesn't matter.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από the.angelhunter:

Here's a thread from 2017, where the developer responds on the EULA: https://steamcommunity.com/app/362490/discussions/0/1354868867719525358/

Comes down to it being a standard copy/paste, emphasis on the usage of reasonable, and "It's important to understand that such clauses are not directed at typical users, but rather serious abuse of the product that grossly violate licensing terms, e.g. providing large scale access to the product."

As far I know Steam doesn't read EULA by default, and might only look at it when it's reported

I understand they addressed it and admitted it was something they just pulled from some website with different contract agreements, yet it needs to be changed. They may intend for it to be for pirating, but it does apply to everyone regardless. Even if there is no ill intent, I simply do not know what a stranger would do, given an agreement like this. Even for its intended group, it still isn't legal.

Well it doesn't need to be changed just because you don't like it. Sometimes it just means you decline to except the EULA and don't play the game if you feel that strongly.

After all the developer could have changed it in 2017 when there was a fuss and didn't. I think that's your answer.

[rawWwRrr]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από USS Liberty:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από rawWwRrr:

No one from Exanima is going to show up at your house and demand access to your computer.

That doesn't matter.

That was the point of your OP, was it not?

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από USS Liberty:

What? Access to my home and my computer?

That is what it says in the EULA but no one is coming to your house. They also can't force their way into your home just because you accepted the EULA with that provision in it. You've probably already accepted other EULAs that grant the same and not known it. It's meant for a specific subset of users, not you. And let's say they even make the request to enter your home, which they won't, and you say no. The worst thing they could ever do in retribution is take away your ability to play that game.

But you know what's in the EULA and have the ability to not accept it. Make your choice.

[Start_Running]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από USS Liberty:

In the EULA, the game states:
3.6 The Licensee must provide to the Licensor, or procure for the Licensee, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, reasonable access to:
(a) any Computers and/or media upon which the Software is stored, installed or used; and
(b) any premises at which any such Computer and/or media is situated from time to time, for the purpose of the investigating whether the Licensee is complying with the terms of this EULA.

What? Access to my home and my computer? Does Steam not read through the EULA of games they host?

'Reasonable' is operative word. Basically they're just reserving the power to investigate if they suspect you have been doing something naughty.

Don't worry. They aren't going to do that. IUf they suspect you're doing a naughty they will just revokle the license.

Though if it comes down to it. They won't barge into your house. If you refuse the request they will simply seek a warrant for search of your premises, and your local police will come in and seize the stuff. Assuming the warrant is granted.

[Ganger]

If the claus is there then it's will always be a option for them to use this power, it would be unlikely they would just turn up at your door under the current laws in most countries without a court order/warrant.

Another point, we all jump at the joys of digital gaming but because we are online and are now forced too use services such as xbox, psn, steam etc... we have allow ourselves too lose all our rights with the games we buy and contend we pay for and we make it easy for big business, developers, publishers and other 3rd parties too take action against us too suspend, cancel, limit or even legal action against us, our accounts and games because we no longer hide under the veil of anonymity like we once did.

[Satoru]

I realize 'gamers' dont really deal with commercial style EULAs. But like the dev said this is literally "get the drugged up drunk paralegal to draft this from our boilerplate templates" level of stuff. LIke the dev said its simply to allow for on-site auditing of software.

If you think this is non-enforceable, allow me to introduce you to Autodesk who has literally an entire division dedicated to doing SWAT style audits of your entire network and premises to enforce their licensing, and their EULA is much much much worse than this clause. I've seen them shut down entire divisions due to licensing non-compliance

[nullable]

And why do they do that? Because the cost of auditing is much less than the cost of the commercial licenses for their software.

That sort of activity doesn't really scale to consumer software and especially games often sold at 25%-75% discounts... Even if the clause exists because it's boilerplate and not really practical in context. It's much more likely to apply to some Internet cafe if you're convinced they will invoke it at some point.

[Satoru]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Snakub Plissken:

And why do they do that? Because the cost of auditing is much less than the cost of the commercial licenses for their software.

That sort of activity doesn't really scale to consumer software and especially games often sold at 25%-75% discounts... Even if the clause exists because it's boilerplate and not really realistic that doesn't really mean much. It's much more likely to apply to some Internet cafe if you're convinced they will invoke it at some point.

My feeling is that the game company had a law firm 'give them an eula' and the law firm just handed them whatever they use for commercial software because its 'software' and its all the same to the lawyers at least. Yes its not like super relevant or useful for a small game company. But I'm gussing the gamedevs paid like $50 to get a 'standard' EULA and well yeah this is the 'standard commercial EULA' that is probably a word mail merge macro of <company name> <company address>

While this looks 'shocking' to gamers, as someone who's had to spend an inordinate amount of time having to run software audits for the Autodesk Mafia, the Adobe Yakuza, or the Microsoft Triads, let me tell you clauses like this are very very common in commercial software

[Start_Running]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ganger:

If the claus is there then it's will always be a option for them to use this power, it would be unlikely they would just turn up at your door under the current laws in most countries without a court order/warrant.

Bingo. Of course this assumes that the tech won't be there that allows them to do so remotely.

Another point, we all jump at the joys of digital gaming but because we are online and are now forced too use services such as xbox, psn, steam etc... we have allow ourselves too lose all our rights with the games we buy and contend we pay for and we make it easy for big business, developers, publishers and other 3rd parties too take action against us too suspend, cancel, limit or even legal action against us, our accounts and games because we no longer hide under the veil of anonymity like we once did.

It;'s not that we've lost rights. And this is the thing people forget. RThese EUlas and opowers of the developers and publishers have existed for decades. IT s just that it has only been relatively recently that the dev/pubs have had a practical means of enforcing and exercising the rights they reserved.

Its like how running red lights is an offense that people often play fast and loose with..until they started putting cameras at stoplights that allowed them to not the time, place, and most importantly license number of the cars that break the light,. Now they don't need to have unblinking police officers on every corner. They just need to write down a number and mail you the ticket.

[Mad Scientist]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ganger:

If the claus is there then it's will always be a option for them to use this power, it would be unlikely they would just turn up at your door under the current laws in most countries without a court order/warrant.

It's unlikely they'd get that, as they would have to provide evidence of some sort in addition to the fact they are not a law enforcement agency, and would be putting themselves into danger intentionally. This is basically a clause on how to get ended in self defense by a property owner/renter for stepping onto their property.

An agreement does not equate to the actual power to do so, it's likely just a generic contract made by someone else which wasn't well thought out. Contract or not, you can't just welcome yourself to someones land property or their property (computers) and expect it to go well. Burden of proof is a thing, and in many states/countries, you're signing your own death if trying this as not-a-cop.

[Satoru]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mr. Gentlebot:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ganger:

If the claus is there then it's will always be a option for them to use this power, it would be unlikely they would just turn up at your door under the current laws in most countries without a court order/warrant.

It's unlikely they'd get that, as they would have to provide evidence of some sort in addition to the fact they are not a law enforcement agency, and would be putting themselves into danger intentionally. This is basically a clause on how to get ended in self defense by a property owner/renter for stepping onto their property.

An agreement does not equate to the actual power to do so, it's likely just a generic contract made by someone else which wasn't well thought out. Contract or not, you can't just welcome yourself to someones land property or their property (computers) and expect it to go well. Burden of proof is a thing, and in many states/countries, you're signing your own death if trying this as not-a-cop.

Here's how this works on a practical level

1) The Autodesk mafia will come and say they want to perform an audit of your software compliance
2) they will point ot the EULA saying they have the authority to perform said audit
3) they give you a tool that you must run on your network
4) If you refuse, Autodesk will then say you are out of compliance, rip out your support contract, and sue you into oblivion

You can 'refuse' all you want. Autodesk will sue you for being out of compliance and the longer you hold out, the more the damages will be. If you sign a contract that says the company can perform an on-site audit, then guess what, you made a binding contract and that's legal. You don't have to like it, but nothing about that is illegal.

[Mad Scientist]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Satoru:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mr. Gentlebot:

It's unlikely they'd get that, as they would have to provide evidence of some sort in addition to the fact they are not a law enforcement agency, and would be putting themselves into danger intentionally. This is basically a clause on how to get ended in self defense by a property owner/renter for stepping onto their property.

An agreement does not equate to the actual power to do so, it's likely just a generic contract made by someone else which wasn't well thought out. Contract or not, you can't just welcome yourself to someones land property or their property (computers) and expect it to go well. Burden of proof is a thing, and in many states/countries, you're signing your own death if trying this as not-a-cop.

Here's how this works on a practical level

1) The Autodesk mafia will come and say they want to perform an audit of your software compliance
2) they will point ot the EULA saying they have the authority to perform said audit
3) they give you a tool that you must run on your network
4) If you refuse, Autodesk will then say you are out of compliance, rip out your support contract, and sue you into oblivion

You can 'refuse' all you want. Autodesk will sue you for being out of compliance and the longer you hold out, the more the damages will be.

Developer:
Bare Mettle Entertainment
Publisher:
Bare Mettle Entertainment

For autodesk;
Dummy network with virtualization is likely what anyone would do if they just wanted to run it on "a" network, tool would be meaningless and worthless. Even if direct on a network, you can still limit what it has access to and what portion of the network, which would actually show high security and no scrutiny from a company like autodesk, since usually they're in Pro versions of OS which are network controlled.

If you use their stuff you should know what you're doing.

Your example is also not a physical intrusion, they know what would happen and they're aware anyone can run anything to fool a tool. They also wouldn't sue if they're getting their license/sub cost, a lot of licenses are used for education, others are single-user or low multi-user in small environments and easily scrutinized before handing over the keys as to the business or personal reason it's used for.

Either way, I where I am, can refuse just about anything, as the most important systems are non networked for maximum security, so there's no obligation to run a network tool on a non networked system, as that would be automatically in the unreasonable category and prone to legal counters, ie right to refusal due to unreasonable request.

But this is about Bare Mettle Entertainment, which has realistically 0 power to even attempt that part, so for once stick to the reality of the subject.

[nullable]

Well I don't think Satoru was suggesting the develop would try to exploit that part of the EULA. His point was more along the lines of general disbelief that it's illegal or otherwise unenforceable under any circumstances.

There's some communication issues that occur when people want to argue general points or specific points, even more so when they want to fluidly switch between one or the other as convenient.

I think everyone is in general agreement that a game studio is very much less likely to try to audit individual users. While commercial software vendors selling licenses for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars for software that's being used on dozens or hundreds of machines might be quite a bit more willing to exercise their rights and make sure they're being paid what they're owed and that companies aren't engaging in piracy.

They're two very different markets and in reality have two very different revenue models and so how issues are handled are bound to vary quite a bit between consumer and commercial software licenses.