Jump to content

Brainlord’s Petition to Change the EULA


Recommended Posts

Have you, by chance, had any legal training? I feel like I'm well qualified. I watch judge Judy. (Deal with it glasses slide down). I feel like this is the most accurate interpretation of the EULA. If you have a different one, make a different thread. This is a thread about a petition, not about argueing over the validity of our arguments. If you think our arguments are invalid, then so be it. This is a place to sign a petition, so if you are not signing, ignore it. What the heck does it matter to you if we have a petition? The thing about slander? I have not seen any insults in this thread so far. You want slander? (Warning: I am triggered) first grader roast incoming: My dad can beat up your dad. There, now you have your slander. Now that argument is valid.

Also: how, in the name of everything Scott Manley ever built, is us saying we want to change the EULA hurting T2's sales? I feel like this is just you throwing words at us. 

I also noticed I said to stop argueing and ignore it.. so... Oops.

Edited by TheMadKraken2297
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably just opening myself up to get flamed here, but I'm totally with @Starman4308. Just because something's in the EULA doesn't mean they're going to do it. Heck, the company I work for has an entire chapter in the licensing section of our software EULA dedicated to specific rules of use concerning a license type that doesn't even exist. We have never used it. We aren't planning on using it. But for whatever reason, it's in the EULA.

What's going on here, it looks like, is that Take Two uses the same EULA for everything. Which means that the EULA needs to cover anything that is applicable to even one of their games. This way their legal team doesn't need to give themselves a headache maintaining multiple legal documents, which I imagine is quite a bit of work.

What that means is that KSP's EULA now has contents that do not apply to KSP, but they're in the EULA anyway because they applied to, say, GTA. The panic here seems to stem from the logic that:

  1. EULA says they can collect X, Y, and Z.
  2. There's no way for them to get X, Y, and Z within KSP.
  3. Therefore they're using methods outside of KSP (i.e. spyware) to collect X, Y, and Z, because otherwise it wouldn't be in the EULA.

Except maybe collecting X, Y, and Z applied in some other property they own, and they just didn't bother to pull that bit out of the EULA for KSP, because again, they recycle the same EULA for everything.

And by the way, I can absolutely confirm what some people have said about SQUAD not being able to clarify the EULA. Their lack of response should absolutely not be taken as an admission of "guilt." I've been one of my company's software forum representatives, and we are not allowed to make any kind of comment on what the EULA actually means, or anything that could potentially be taken as a legal statement, because we're not lawyers, and we might phrase something in a way that can be used as a legal loophole because we're not speaking legalese. We're only allowed to quote parts of the EULA verbatim to say "here's the section you should read" or in some cases take it to the legal team and let them get back to us to tell us exactly, word for word, what we need to say.

 

33 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

The thing about slander? I have not seen any insults in this thread so far.

I would say that spreading the unsubstantiated claim that Squad/Take2 has put spyware in KSP, or is going to put spyware in KSP, could be considered slander (or would that technically be libel?).

EDIT: I looked it up, and since social media posts are written, they would indeed be considered libel, not slander. But it's basically the same thing anyway.

Edited by Ace in Space
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Have you, by chance, had any legal training? I feel like I'm well qualified. I watch judge Judy. (Deal with it glasses slide down). I feel like this is the most accurate interpretation of the EULA. If you have a different one, make a different thread. This is a thread about a petition, not about argueing over the validity of our arguments. If you think our arguments are invalid, then so be it. This is a place to sign a petition, so if you are not signing, ignore it. What the heck does it matter to you if we have a petition? The thing about slander? I have not seen any insults in this thread so far. You want slander? (Warning: I am triggered) first grader roast incoming: My dad can beat up your dad. There, now you have your slander. Now that argument is valid.

Watching a television show is not three years of law school and passing the bar exam. Not by a long shot.

If you came to me and said "I watch a bunch of science shows, I'm qualified to comment on this scientific paper", I'd have a hard time not laughing. I imagine much the same principle applies to the practice of law.

Insinuating that Take Two is going to install spyware has no established basis in fact, and acts such as signing an uninformed petition are already starting to have impacts on KSP's ratings, impacting sales and causing real harm from an imagined threat.

EDIT:

4 minutes ago, Ace in Space said:

And by the way, I can absolutely confirm what some people have said about SQUAD not being able to clarify the EULA. Their lack of response should absolutely not be taken as an admission of "guilt." I've been one of my company's software forum representatives, and we are not allowed to make any kind of comment on what the EULA actually means, or anything that could potentially be taken as a legal statement, because we're not lawyers, and we might phrase something in a way that can be used as a legal loophole because we're not speaking legalese. We're only allowed to quote parts of the EULA verbatim to say "here's the section you should read" or in some cases take it to the legal team and let them get back to us to tell us exactly, word for word, what we need to say.

This is probably what I was thinking of from the other thread. In this case: Squad wouldn't be able to release a statement: Take Two's lawyers might, but they're probably laughing too hard to take this seriously under the suspicion that any statement would just be further misinterpreted and is just not worth it, hoping it'll just die down soon enough.

Edited by Starman4308
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ace in Space said:

 

 

I would say that spreading the unsubstantiated claim that Squad/Take2 has put spyware in KSP, or is going to put spyware in KSP, could be considered slander (or would that technically be libel?).

Nah, I won't flame you.

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation

from dictionary.com. it's slander depending on your point of view. Oops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

He keeps [snip] discussing "evidence" when I'm just talking about intent. "Conflict-of-interest" doesn't happen with individuals or corporations, it only applies to government officials or lawyers with clients on both sides of the same case.

And just to be clear: I never said Take Two Interactive is distributing spyware.

I have said they are using (indeed are insisting on) a License Agreement that gives them permission to install spyware. (If you are agreeing to it, then you are agreeing to spyware.) And IF they REFUSE to change this license agreement, then I am left with NO OTHER conclusion than it is their intent to install spyware.

Please! Disabuse me of this notion! 

Please alter this agreement so that it is clear that this is not spyware. That is not too much for any consumer to ask.

Edited by Vanamonde
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to interpreting legalese, my brother (a lawyer) has thoroughly disabused me of any notions like trying to defend myself in court or drafting my own contracts. They don't exactly twiddle their thumbs in law school for three years. There are countless other factors: contracts do not supercede law, reasonable interpretations, judicial precedent, all sorts of other factors that can potentially render a plain-English reading of a legal document a spectacularly incorrect one.

You have no evidence even of intent: no historical precedent, no expert opinion on what exactly was meant in the EULA and how broadly it could be applied, nothing. Just fear, an Internet connection, and other fearful people to produce an echo chamber.

I've said it again and again: Take Two would be blindingly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly foolish to try installing spyware. The PR backlash alone would hugely harm their future sales, nevermind the strong possibility that a judge would interpret the EULA in such a way as to forbid spyware and force Take Two to pay an enormous class-action settlement.

Half of what props up EULAs is that they've never been seriously tested, and Take Two isn't going to risk the EULA of not just KSP, but every single video game they publish under that same EULA by seeing how moustache-twirlingly evil they can be.

And no, they are under no obligation to respond to your petition. The paranoia of a few people isn't worth Take Two's time.

It's not worth any more of my time either. It seems that no matter how many times I point out "you haven't got a professional to read the EULA, and the sole point of installing spyware would literally be to prove how moustache-twirlingly evil they can be", nothing seems to stick. Every time the obvious motive of simplifying their legal status by applying the same EULA to everything is pointed out, people assume Take Two has infinite money to draft a custom EULA for everything. Every single time I point out this hysteria is giving potential new players a wholly unjustified false impression and splitting the community of existing players, you just get more hysterical.

Edited by Vanamonde
Quoting removed comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep ignoring his point, which is:  YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER!

I don't care how many so-called EULAs you have written.   Did a lawyer review any of them?  Why don't you post a link to one of these "EULA"s that you have written so we can see how brilliant you are.  Who knows, maybe you are the most brilliant non-lawyer I've ever met.

But, until YOU have a lawyer read it, and explain it to  you, then you have no real understanding of what it is saying, and how it is, and can be, interpreted. 

 

Edited by Vanamonde
Quoting removed comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any butcher can hold a knife. And yet. I'd rather have a certified surgeon cut me open to remove an infected appendix than the local meat cleaver "who has plenty experience with cutting meat it." Would you let the gas pipes in your house be fixed by your brother-in-law who has watched "three or four youtube videos, it's really not that hard" or do you play safe and use an licensed & bonded plumber?

It works the same with law. Yes, it would be nice if it were readable as plain English. But the words do not always have the same meaning, and punctuation matters. An experienced eye can spot deficiencies where you don't, and won't get alarmed where you will. So yes, I'll be more likely to take the word from "someone who studied for it" than from a good willing but untrained layman whose approach is "how hard can it be."

Edited by Vanamonde
Quoting removed comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

[snipped for brevity]

Well said

2 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

He keeps ... discussing "evidence" when I'm just talking about intent. "Conflict-of-interest" doesn't happen with individuals or corporations, it only applies to government officials or lawyers with clients on both sides of the same case.

And just to be clear: I never said Take Two Interactive is distributing spyware.

I have said they are using (indeed are insisting on) a License Agreement that gives them permission to install spyware. (If you are agreeing to it, then you are agreeing to spyware.) And IF they REFUSE to change this license agreement, then I am left with NO OTHER conclusion than it is their intent to install spyware.

Please! Disabuse me of this notion! 

Please alter this agreement so that it is clear that this is not spyware. That is not too much for any consumer to ask.

Well said, you forgot "legalese" 

no offence @Starman4308

that gets really annoying really fast

Is anyone against changing the EULA like directly against it? 

If your just against the speculation and concern why. I'm asking honestly why the opposition against changing the EULA to be less spyware type even cares? 

Edited by Vanamonde
Quoting removed comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

When it comes to interpreting legalese, my brother (a lawyer) has thoroughly disabused me of any notions like trying to defend myself in court or drafting my own contracts

Well, (1) that's you.

And (2) that's hilarious. Because I have (A) drafted my own contracts, (B) defended them court myself (it's called a Pro Se defense)  and (C) WON. (against lawyers, they never got a penny).

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Is anyone against changing the EULA like directly against it? 

If your just against the speculation and concern why. I'm asking honestly why the opposition against changing the EULA to be less spyware type even cares? 

Suppose that somehow, the stars align, and this "open letter" gets the attention of Squad management.

Suppose that, not only do the stars align, but the heavens open and out come angels blowing their trumpets and sprinkling pixie dust, and Squad management decides to forward it to Take Two management with the title "An open letter from one of our customers regarding privacy concerns in the EULA"

And suppose that, not only do the stars align, and the heavens open, and we have angels blowing their trumpets and sprinkling pixe dust, but we also have unicorns farting rainbows, and Take Two management actually opens the email and reads it.

Now, at this point, we all agree we're pretty deep already in fantasy land, right?

The email gets read, and is forwarded to T2's attorneys. I wonder if, in downtown Manhattan, they'll be able to find a good one. Do they even have attorneys there? But I digress. The attorneys reaction to this letter: "BWAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHA."

Really, you need a lawyer for this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

So yes, I'll be more likely to take the word from "someone who studied for it" than from a good willing but untrained layman whose approach is "how hard can it be."

What about a trained layman whose approach is, "I deal with this every day and every night and I know THIS PART way better than you." Because that's what won for me in Court.

Edited by Brainlord Mesomorph
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

Suppose that somehow, the stars align, and this "open letter" gets the attention of Squad management.

Suppose that, not only do the stars align, but the heavens open and out come angels blowing their trumpets and sprinkling pixie dust, and Squad management decides to forward it to Take Two management with the title "An open letter from one of our customers regarding privacy concerns in the EULA"

And suppose that, not only do the stars align, and the heavens open, and we have angels blowing their trumpets and sprinkling pixe dust, but we also have unicorns farting rainbows, and Take Two management actually opens the email and reads it.

Now, at this point, we all agree we're pretty deep already in fantasy land, right?

The email gets read, and is forwarded to T2's attorneys. I wonder if, in downtown Manhattan, they'll be able to find a good one. Do they even have attorneys there? But I digress. The attorneys reaction to this letter: "BWAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHA."

Really, you need a lawyer for this stuff.

So your going to not answer my question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LordFerret said:

I agree with @Brainlord Mesomorphand @KSK's point. To put it plainly, this EULA is outright devious and manipulative. Not happening. I am not your marketing fodder to have and play with.

I have however clicked on the 'Agree' button to access these forums, access the Wiki, and to download the update from the store. That's all I'm going to click on and 'Agree' with though, just enough to obtain updates to my stock install. Now, with that in mind...

There is a solution here; It's called PULL THE PLUG. That is exactly what I'm going to do from here on in. No aspect of this software will be allowed access to the web what-so-ever while it executes. I'll play my install on an isolated PC with no web access at all if necessary; I don't need anything (mods, CKAN, etc) checking for updates for me, I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. And when it comes to the point where the game will not play without web access, then it will be time for me to move on... and I will.

I think it collects it while offline and transmits when your online.

5 hours ago, KSK said:

Well the simple answer to that is for Take Two to not put out a wall of legalese that's open to misinterpretation and doubt and then stay resolutely silent when people get concerned about it. Instead, they could pull their collective thumbs out and craft a reasonable agreement that's more suitable to a game like KSP which has grown up as an early-access game with a heavy emphasis on community involvement. But instead they throw their standard 'we reserve the rights to own everything and have total control' boilerplate at us.

Or in other words - don't pull a dork move, refuse to explain said dork move  and then act surprised when people call you on it, reasonably or unreasonably.

And yeah - about explaining themselves. I'm curious why you think that Take Two would conflict themselves by providing clarification on their own damned agreement. Because I'm really not seeing how that works. If you are right (which is possible I suppose), then you end up with some ridiculous situations:

Party A:  This is our draft contract - please read it over and sign it if you're happy.
Party B:  Umm, it's mostly OK but we're not sure about clauses 4.1, 5.4 and 7.8. We think we could make them work but could you give us some background, so we can see where you're coming from and why you need them?
Party A:  Nope - can't do that because we'd be giving you legal advice which would a conflict of interest on our part.
Party B:  ...

All I can say is that I've been involved in plenty of contract negotiations alongside our legal team and I can safely say I've never seen anything like the above. I have seen plenty of examples of Party B stonewalling with a 'these are our standard terms' line, without further explanation (which isn't terribly helpful) but I've never seen them claim that telling us anything else would be a conflict of interest.

Oh - and to the folks who aren't really fussed about the new terms and conditions because they don't believe it's in Take Two's interest to enforce the more draconian ones? Well you might be right. Or you might not. Now, I could be missing something but since Take Two bought out the rights to KSP, I haven't seen anything from them about the game. I have no idea what their intentions are, how they feel about the community or anything. In fact the sole interaction I've had with them, is the introduction of these egregiously lopsided terms and conditions. I have no basis for trusting them or for assuming that I should take the EULA and privacy policy at anything other than face value. 

And yes, for what it's worth, I agree that they would be stupid to enforce various terms of their EULA. But it would hardly be the first time that a large company has made a stupid decision in the name of greed or short term gain.

Exactly companies are companies 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

What about a trained layman whose approach is, "I deal with this every day and every night and I know THIS PART way better than you." Because that what won for me in Court.

You still haven't posted any of your so-called self-written EULAs.

So far, all I see is someone who is blowing smoke, without anything to back up anything he says.

You say you've won in court.  Ok, then prove it.  Court cases are public records, tell us the details so that we can see if you can prove anything you've been saying about yourself.

For example, city, state (I assume that you are in the US, if not then the equivalent would do), court case #, date, etc.

Paraphrasing your own words:

 I will assume that if you do not provide the requested information, then you are simply blowing hot air (I'd prefer to say something else, you can guess what).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, invision said:

no one is forcing you to agree. if you dont like the EULA then you do not have to accept it.

Actually you do have to accept it or not play it. See the below quote

 

4 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

LOL I disagree.

They'll have to get a judge to tell me that they get to turn a game I already bought into spyware, and then tell me not to play it while they keep my money. 

Exactly you prove my point

2 hours ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

Even more so they're not invested in the community, they just Control- C Control- V'd their other EULAs. I know I'm just feeding the flame, but from what I understand about computers,  you cannot get our info from a game which is not connected to the internet without a software bug. Might just be me but I feel like that's the definition of spyware- or a Trojan horse. Hey look, here's a game about explosions and happy green guys! (Company is allowed to issue an update in which spyware- is included).

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Well, you probably have seen a popup about new terms of use, few days ago, here on the forums, and also on wiki. If you're still using this forum, then you have already accepted new rules. Because it stated clearly, paraphrasing here: "if you're not accepting it, you must stop using the software from this moment".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheMadKraken2297 said:

We're not saying that that WILL, we are saying that the EULA is so broad to the point that it dosen't even specify where they're collecting the info from. Sure I might not be putting my bank account information in my Module Manager but given the EULA they're allowed to collect our info from anywhere, not just our KSP files.

Also: have you even read the EULA? If not I'd suggest to stop suggesting a lawyer. You don't need a lawyer when it's so blantantly stated. Any common idjit can understand it.

Exactly 

1 minute ago, Clockwork13 said:

You don't have to accept it if you don't run it through Steam.

BTW, please stop trying to dodge @linuxgurugamer's question

I bought it on steam

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You still haven't posted any of your so-called self-written EULAs.

Well I've just spent a good  20 minutes poking around the web and don't find any to link to anymore. Your welcome to go buy this: https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/pzdb-1-3/72733/  there's one in there.

As for the case I won, It was 10 years of litigation between 2000 and 2010, Palm Beach County, used to know the docket number. But more to the point I really don't care if you believe me or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a fair number of personal remarks have been removed from the thread. We will re-open the thread for discussion, but if it turns personal again, we might need to close it for good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I think it collects it while offline and transmits when your online.

For it to transmit anything the software would have to be executing. Anything 'alien' trying to execute on my system would be squashed like a bug before it got launched... and I keep very close watch on what processes run on my system. Don't we all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...