Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックはロックされています 
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Archival copies, DRM bypassing in specific circumstances, and etc. all prove the customers have rights beyond what the publishers want to offer (or make known) in their lopsided EULAs.
The fact you can bypass DRM legally in some circumstances proves it's not all about the devs/pubs wants, intent, or rights. The customer has a right to access what they purchased too. And the whole reason this topic comes up is because UPDATES CAN BREAK THAT ACCESS.
The only time this stuff is different is when it's an active service like an MMO where server infrastructure and blah blah blah are required.
Btw do you know why publishers use DMCA, copyright law, and etc. to go after modders and more? I'll give you a hint... It's because their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ EULAs aren't so ironclad as to actually hold up. If they were they'd be using the EULAs in those cases... but they don't. They only ever use the ToS or EULAs in cases related to active services.
It's a fuzzy area since circumstances, local law, the nature of the software, and the nature of the license , not to mention the skill of the lawyers, are all significant variables. Generallyy speaking.
You aren't allow to distribute, install on more than one machine, . Modifying the exe is sketchy because while in all cases it does void all warranty and guarantee, many licensors will not opress charges so long as you're not trying to reverse engineer, or otherwise violate ciopyright/patents.
Example in my country is where a chain of super markets actually wouind up tweaking an accounting software package to work on their systems (which were unsupported natively by the package).
Simply injecting something such as various tools is modifying the exe in memory in real-time. Putting stuff like that in shows a fundamental lack of understanding of tech. Widescreen workarounds, hardcoded resolution workarounds, and more all fall under modifying the executable either in realtime through memory or just straight up permanent modification. Fixing an exe that is hardcoded to look for drivers in a certain spot and isn't "future proof" at all regarding computing is modifying the exe.
Sooner of later you will have to physically modify exes for numerous reasons because of either bad coding or just unforeseen changes in computing. A large majority of "modern" compat patches for old games are exe modifications and are even publically distributed (just the binaries themselves aren't). Fixing borked/out of date networking and pointing it towards something functional as well falls under exe modification. Instructionset bypasses, conversions so things can run under diff OSs, and more all have exe tweaks. Some are even well known and cost money. Publishers can't do ♥♥♥♥ though because it requires owning the game data/license separately to work.
Also fun fact... GPU drivers, graphical mods, overlays, and more do sometimes have to reverse engineer game processes and code for their fixes.
EULAs have people believing in a situation with rights that isn't actually accurate at all.
Funny story there. WHen they say archival copies, theyy mean literally archival copies. Meaning the copies cannot actually be used, just filed and stored.
And if you'd ever read this EULA's you'd know that again the knife cuts both ways. And as mentioned its usually the perogitive of the publisher to decide whether or not to pursue the matter in court. The circumstances under which the courts will rule in favour of the user are very narrow and specific so for 96% of the cases, the EULA will hold up.
Those legal circumstances typically involve cases where the drm has no way of working. Like the call backs going somewhere that no longer exist, etc etc, In such cases publishers themselves will allow it for a period as a courtesy while they work to create an official patch for it. Again. Very specific circumstances. Like say the makers of the drm went belly up and their servers are all shut down. This is something the publisher cannot control, and where the software is critical in import (related to the operation of a business for example) the publisher will waive that clause in the EULA voluntarily and temporarily. That will end the moment the publisher issues a patch.
Well that and the DMCA actually applies harsher fines and penalties for breach. Plus it is the more approriate law underwhich to file such greviences and the EULA's themselves state whether, when, and how the copyrighted assets may be used. Case in point WC3:R. Translation, the statutes of the DMCA allow the licensor to apply more force, and squeeze the sods balls just a bit harder.
They can, but as said the EULA is a contract and at best there'sd just be a penalty for that single breach of contract. DMCA...ioh that ♥♥♥♥ allows you to apply a penalty per incident. So if you use x different copyrighted assets in the same mod...you can be fined seperately for each one. Those fines can then be multiplied by the number of times the mod has been downloaded.
In short. straight up contract breach has a lowere ceiling on maximum penalty than Copyright and patent violations.
You should be aware that selectively ignoring supposed "infringements" picking and choosing undermines their validity and standing. With many things if enough ♥♥♥♥ slides and is ignored, people will get a rude awakening when they try to exert control later. There is a reason some companies are very litigious and overbearing. If you turn a blind eye to whatever or whatever supposed right exists, you can lose it.
If enough idiot customers waive their rights and don't make claim to them don't be surprised if they too are lost.
Nope official courtesy is irrelevant in the circumstances where it is allowable.
Hell look at the emulation scene the EULA on allll those games explicitly forbids that, but it's not actually able to be enforced. You can dump your own game ROMs, you just can't distribute them. Downloading them is also a no-no depending on territory (even if a license is possessed), but that falls under "copyright infringement" and not breaking EULA.
So you'll acknowledge breaking access via DRM allows provisions, but have this weird take where breaking access via updates is perfectly fine? Lolok
If someone is in breach of multiple things you can list all the things in the lawsuit you know. It's not an either or. If EULAs were so grand they'd be tacked on beside the copyright infringement and DMCA stuff, but they generally aren't. They're pretty much only ever referenced in regards to an on-going service being rendered. Most software is not an on-going service.
It shows up after money exchanges hands, allows for no negotiation or agreement between the parties as a Hobson's choice, is wholly one sided, predatory, and doesn't even have concrete terms thanks to their little clause about terms may change at any time without notice. It's not a contract. If a bank or really anything else tried that with contracts, they'd lose spectacularly.
REAL contracts I've entered have require signing, allowed for edits/negotiation, many have required a physical presence, some a witness, almost all resulted in both parties having a copy of the terms, and none of them had any vagueness at all to them the rights of both parties were laid out in full and there was none of this "all this could change at a whim" BS. And really most importantly all this is set in stone before money, services, or property changes hands. EULAs couldn't be further removed from a proper contract. And with a proper contract without doing everything just so it will not hold up very well.
---------------
Allowing rollback properly through the platform allows people to maintain access and compatibility. People are allowed access to their licenses. Live service stuff is more complicated, but the stuff people would want to rollback generally has nothing to do with live service and persistent internet infrastructure.
This is actually true in certain copyright and trademark cases. Plus its also a matter than brands have an identity and value apart from the products under the brand.
It actually doesn't work that way....
And again..incorrect. I'm starting to see why you stick to just talking as opposed to proving anything...you're really bad at this. COurtesy means the licensor waives their right for a period. Icf taken to court there is usually a good chance the courts will side with the licensor.
Really?
https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/15/18097081/nintendo-rom-lawsuit-loveroms-loveretro-emuparadise
And again just because a law cannot be enforced doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean it doesn't exist and you'll find its usually just a matter of time before enforcement catches up.
And as said they pursue it under copyright infringement because there's a higher ceiling in regards to maximum penalties. One will max out in the thousands. the other can go into the millions.
Under very specific and limited circumstances...
It actually can require seperate filings and seperate court battles if they fall under different areas. Plus effeciency. It makes little sense to hit them again for EULA when you've allready drained them down to the marrow through DMCA.
it's like stabbing someone after you've blown their head of with a shotgun.
Or poisoning someone after you've cut them open witha chainsaw.
Its a waste of energy...especially if your paying tyhe killer by the hour.
Yawn. You really are bad at this Braining stuff.
If the criteria was met to allow that steam would have already strongly recopmmended the publishers rollback since suuch circumstabnces would be severe enough to warrant steam delisting the product.
Exactly.
Accepting a multitude of EULA's does not affect your right to refund, you can.
Claiming you were forced to sign a EULA is beyond belief as you have total control of a mouse scroll and the final click and decision.
HOSTING AND DISTRIBUTING ISN'T LEGAL. Plus some of the sites that have been shutdown have also been profiting off it.
Dumping your own ROMs for personal limited usage is way different than hosting and distributing them. I can copy game files to a game I already own from a disk or hdd to a different one for my own limited purposes... what I can't do is give those files to someone else.
On Thursday the 10th, Psyonix, the makers of Rocket League, will drop support for Mac and Linux platforms. They will force an update that effectively bricks the client on those platforms by removing ALL networking features from the game. You can not play locally or online with other Mac and Linux users that will be locked into the same version. They are offering a refund on the game itself, but not for any of the in game content that users bought and paid for. Which, lets be honest, is where most of the players money was taken.
It would be one thing if development simply stopped and the client was left as is, but they are intentionally destroying the client to prevent its intended use. This is a prime example of why developers should not have the right to dictate updates. The developer in this case is the bad actor and is causing harm.
IMO, users should have the right to reject that update regardless of the developers wishes. The developer is intentionally breaking a game they sold to users and taking away the main reason people bought the game.