Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[Kerbart]

3 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I read this, and I believe it, but in this same thread people state companies must do this to protect their IP.  If they aren't legally enforceable, than how are they protection at all?  What's the point?  It's one or the other isn't it?  It really just feels like consumers are getting walking all over for no reason.

I think it's a trademark vs copyright issue, and throw in scale. T2 could care less if you have 5 copies on your machine for the various versions, modded, vanilla, resized to solar system, etc, etc. No one will be taken to court about that. Give a copy on a friend and even if T2 finds out, they'll hardly consider it worth it to pay their attorneys to recover that $50 from you. Post it on bittorrent or sell dozens of CD's (or memory sticks?) at your local school and it might be a different story.

What they are more worried about is people selling T-shirts with Jeb on it. That's more a trademark issue than copyright ("I drew this Jeb myself, it's not a copy). Trademark violations can be interpreted as "brand abandonment" by the IP owner if not fought, and can be used in court against them. This is why large companies "have to" defend their trademarks aggressively (NFL telling a church league for grammar school kids they can't use NFL team names comes to mind. I'm not saying that was necessary but that's the reasoning behind such behavior). Remember T2 hasn't just paid Squad to sell copies of the game. They also have the right to sell plushies, posters, coffee mugs and 3D printed models. 

So, if you decide to make an x-rated movie with Kerbals in it, T2 has the legal rope to strangle you. If you decide to market a first-person shooter called "Kerval Space Program: Jeb goes wild" they will come after you. And the less loopholes their EULA has, the more likely they will be in winning those kind of cases. That's why these EULA's are ironclad.

[Diche Bach]

21 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@Diche Bach

So I finally googled and found this article:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/02/to-protect-or-serve

and I don't know if that's current or not - it is pretty old - but I'll take it as a fair representation of the lack of clarity we've been batting between us.

For me, it boils down to this. I know that to play games with an EULA, I'm presumed to have agreed to the EULA. If I disagree with the EULA for whatever reason, I know what I'm supposed to do is not play the game, and walk away entirely. I don't have the option to reject the EULA and still play the game. Even if the EULA is completely illegal, that still isn't an option - I would have to legally challenge the EULA in court for amendments to be made to make it legal, and then still ultimately accept it or reject the game in its entirety.

And that's the point where this all comes apart. If I play the game without accepting the terms, I'm acting immorally because I know I don't have that option.

Of course I have to reconcile my sense of moral rectitude with my general laziness... so I should technically read EULAs (which I almost never do) and agree to them all whole-heartedly (which I obviously can't) before playing.... but who can be bothered? But that does mean I am compromised to some extent - I can't pretend that I know I've behaved properly and that I'm on the right side of all this. So I can't rely on the moral highground to save me if the legal waters start to rise, I just have to keep hoping they don't.

Or I could start reading all my EULAs, and see you next Christmas?

I disagree. The point of an EULA is to afford a non IP-owner a capacity to make use of copyrighted material. International and many different national level laws make it quite clear what that amounts to: don't steal the IP owners property.

If the IP owner defines "stealing" from them as "continuing to use the product you paid for despite our claiming you have to stop using it simply because we say so" that flies in the face of several hundreds years of property law and general common law. They will do it because they can get away with it. In order to stop doing it, they need to be challenged. But as I've said repeatedly, it is ILLEGAL and it merely waits to be challenged in court. You cannot sell someone something and then changes the terms of sale after the transaction is complete. The fact that the "something" was software makes no difference.

ADDIT: Oh lord, this article . . . While it does make the fair, and accurate point that there are many legal grey areas, the article itself (if not the "legal expert" they consulted) have got at least one thing wrong as far as I can tell.

Quote

For gamers, what this ultimately boils down to is that when they purchase a game, they don't really own it. As Jas explains, "services are essentially just a benefit provided on certain terms and don't involve you owning anything".

Instead, gamers purchase a license which gives them the right to use that software provided they agree to and comply with the terms stipulated in the End User License Agreement (EULA) - that thing you have to click through before you're allowed to play. The problem with this is while publishers treat games as services, gamers generally treat games as goods, and it's entirely logical that they do so.

Gamers have NEVER owned their games. The product/service distinction is irrelevant to this point.

Book owners do not "own" the stories that are created by the unique combination of ink stains on paper sandwiched within the covers of the book. Record owners do not "own" the songs created by the unique combination of peaks and valleys etched into the vinyl on the records. Game DVD owners do not "own" the games created by the software that is represented by the microscopic etching on the plastic disks. Game downloaders who own hardware on which software was stored which creates a game, also do not "own" the game that is encoded on their hardware. But they DO own the hardware and arguably also the software, but they do not own the game.

I own (as I'm sure many of us do) MANY physical media copies. I OWN THEM. No one else owns them. No one else has any legal right to them. The law is absolutely crystal clear on this point, there is NO DEBATE. Sony, MCI, Matrix, EA, and all the other various entities who sold these media to retailers who then sold them to me have absolutely ZERO legal rights to those DVDs/CDs/vinyls or books.

It is essential that this point be absolutely clear to everyone and that we are all in agreement on it. When one makes a purchase for anything, one OWNS that thing. That thing might be "sitting in this seat from 20:00 to 22:00 while the orchestra plays," or it might be "sitting in this seat here while this aircraft travels from L.A. to Honolulu," or it might be "possession of a piece of physical media like a book, a DVD, a CD, a vinyl, an 8-track," whatever. It might also be internet-based access to a database/downloading/installing application sufficient to download and install a functioning copy of a particular piece of software onto one's own hardware. Often this latter example will be highly constrained, meaning that: the software one is paying to download and install might only be compatible with a narrow range of hardwares, and/or dependent on a certain narrow set of operating systems and/or require other third party software to function fully. 

The key analogy here is that: once a person has downloaded a piece of software to their own hardware, they OWN that software. This is not the same thing as "owning the game" or "owing the IP" as I explain below, but it absolutely MUST mean that the person who legally acquired that download OWNS the software; any other interpretation would lead quite simply to anarchy and revolution, even IF the game's publishers/IP owners/their legal counsel would wish to claim otherwise.

The only caveat I could imagine holding up in court is if the EULA had to be agreed to BEFORE the transaction. This is never done, and so the standards of ownership which have prevailed for the past several hundred years of commercial distribution of copyrighted material are the standards which will be applied by any sane court of law. To date, I don't think it has been challenged and it may never be challenged.

Now here are the parts that generate confusion, arguably unnecessary confusion:

1. On many of those physical media objects we possess, are copies of intellectual property.. Those might be music, literature, games, movies, visual arts, etc. Despite OWNING the media on which they exist, NONE OF US own those intellectual properties and we NEVER HAVE. This is a point which the article is either confusing or just plain getting wrong. I do not own "Houses of the Holy" even though I OWN a record with that "album" of music impressed on it. The "lack of ownership of the games" is nothing new, it was ALWAYS the case and has always been the case for hundreds of years.

2. Software, fundamentally, are logical and mathematical expressions which regulate electrical states on hardware. Any given piece of software can take multiple different forms depending on how it was created, but the fundamental form which all software must have at some point in its life cycle is "machine code," the binary code which directly controls the electrical states on hardware and thus creates the experience of any given computer application or operating system. In much the same way the author /publisher/IP owner of a book or an album of music OWNS the story/music the developers/publishers/parent company/IP Owners OWN the game. They always have and they always will. What they do not own is my hard drive, just as the owner of Grapes of Wrath doesn't own the book the retailer sold me. Once the software which is the media for that IP is on my hardware, I own it (the software, not the IP). If I agreed to an EULA BEFORE purchase which states that I will relinquish ownership after X period of time, then of course I am bound to do so. But if I agree to a EULA stating as much AFTER I have already paid for the product, then my interpretation is that the writer of the EULA has made an illegal imposition on my property. If they seek to impose their interpretation of property law onto my hardware then they are going to have to take me to court. They won't however, because they know they will lose.

ADDIT#2: but there is one additional "complication" that deserves to be acknowledged, and that is the issue of "software as a service" versus a "product." It is a legitimate distinction, but the distinction is ultimately not dependent either on the medium of distribution, nor claims made by the distributor which run counter to the long-standing standards of commerce and property.

There are many "games" which absolutely ARE services, not "products" and it is perfectly legal and legitimate for the IP owners to describe them that way, and to treat them legally that way. For some service based games (EVE Online is one), the client-side package (the software and all its supporting files and documentation) is readily available to anyone for free (you probably have to create an account but not pay for a subscription); this is of course not the case for many service based games, but I will focus on EVE because the fact the client-side package is "free" serves to demonstrate the actual nature of a "service based game." In the case of EVE Online, this download is built in such a way that, any "functionality" a user might be able to gain with ONLY the client side package is minimal and falls well below the threshold of "full functionality" or "full service."  In order to gain full service, the publisher/IP Owner of the game REQUIRE that users connect these client packages to an authorized server using credentials which are paid for on a subscription basis. CCP gives the client-side away for free because they had the good sense to design the client side well enough that anyone being able to breach their EULA is very unlikely.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Diche Bach
elaboration

[JaffaFediration]

So now we wait then?

[Eleusis La Arwall]

Propably I'm overthinking this but I can't stop thinking about it: So when I upload a screenshot of KSP to imgur, I accept imgurs ToS and thereby grant Imgur Inc. a non-exclusive, irrevokeable license to use that image. Am I able/allowed to grant an exclusive, irrevokeable license to use said image as required by TTIs ToS?

[Derb]

9 minutes ago, Eleusis La Arwall said:

Propably I'm overthinking this but I can't stop thinking about it: So when I upload a screenshot of KSP to imgur, I accept imgurs ToS and thereby grant Imgur Inc. a non-exclusive, irrevokeable license to use that image. Am I able/allowed to grant an exclusive, irrevokeable license to use said image as required by TTIs ToS?

You can grant as many licenses as you like! That's the whole point of license vs ownership.

T2 would just have a beef with imgur if they tried to enforce the exclusive part.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Derb

[MaxPeck]

4 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I read this, and I believe it, but in this same thread people state companies must do this to protect their IP.  If they aren't legally enforceable, than how are they protection at all?  What's the point?  It's one or the other isn't it?  It really just feels like consumers are getting walking all over for no reason.

It’s like having a big dog in your yard to keep people away from your house. People don’t have to be bitten to know to stay out of your yard, there’s a deterrence factor. Even if the EULA is totally unenforceable, when Joe Sixpack sees a 44 page license agreement he might think twice about pirating your stuff, and that’s the goal.  If EULAs were ironclad, there would be no need for DRM... any violation of the license agreement would result in swift punishment for the offender.  The thing is more often than not, copyright holders are unable to meet the burden of showing actual damages and the cases are dismissed with the offender getting a stern talking to.  So, the industries have taken other steps to protect their IP.  After losing time and again, or getting minuscule awards not worth the trial expense, RIAA and MPAA pretty much gave up suing small-one offenders and started going after P2P services.  When that didn’t work, they went dirty and started seeding P2P services with viruses.  

Like @MechBFP said above... ultimately it comes down the the judge and his or her interpretation of the law.  EULAs are cheap to write and cost almost nothing to attach to your IP or product, so why not do it?  If it discourages  50% of potential pirates, then you’ve gotten your money’s worth out of it. And if you do catch someone distributing your stuff, usually a cease and decist letter will do the trick without getting the courts involved, which companies are kind of reluctant to do for PR reasons. It looks bad when you sue your clients, as the RIAA found out. People were stealing music like crazy at the end of the 90s and RIAA unleashed the lawyers. After they ended up in court against a string of teenage girls and one elderly grandmother (who had the misfortune of owning the IP address that some nefarious P2P activity was traced to),  the RIAA ended up becoming one of the biggest villains of the decade. 

So, in the end, I would conclude this sermon by saying you should just do the right thing, pay for your stuff and don’t sweat the legal intricacies of “if I play KSP on my back porch and my neighbor looks at my screen, did I violate the EULA?!”  TT can write all they want in their EULA.  If you think they’re monitoring your game use against your will, or intruding into your system because their EULA says so, then I would say learn how to work your firewall.

[Cheif Operations Director]

The EULA and privacy policy literally say that they can take our bank information and personal information such as First and Last name and physical location on the planet. so it is to much for me. I might even have to delete the game. So no I wont. I really want to get it though.

[GrandProtectorDark]

21 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

The EULA and privacy policy literally say that they can take our bank information and personal information such as First and Last name and physical location on the planet. so it is to much for me. I might even have to delete the game. So no I wont. I really want to get it though.

What is written in the EULA is just plane copy-paste universal T2 Terms to cover their butts, IF something  bad from the side of the community where to happend(aka those very few bad people actually doing illegal stuff with the games assets).
For all other occasions, the EULA practically doesn't exist beyond a "The company has to trust the community to be nice and in return, the community must trust the company to be nice".

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

What is written in the EULA is just plane copy-paste universal T2 Terms to cover their butts, IF something  bad from the side of the community where to happend(aka those very few bad people actually doing illegal stuff with the games assets).
For all other occasions, the EULA practically doesn't exist beyond a "The company has to trust the community to be nice and in return, the community must trust the company to be nice".

So access to your ZipCode, Banking information, Geolocation,  and such just short of your social security number and birth certificate is nessicary to protect against crime? NO warrant no crime committed but they must know all of it.

[GrandProtectorDark]

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

So access to your ZipCode, Banking information, Geolocation,  and such just short of your social security number and birth certificate is nessicary to protect against crime? NO warrant no crime committed but they must know all of it.

Banking information, is obviously for things like online transactions, Geolocation is usefull for things like knowing into which servers they should send you and others. ZipCode something something physical mail,  First and Last name, don't right now know what exactly what where it is used again but in know it has practical use for the customer. 
One simply shouldn't start fear mongering because they could do something. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Banking information, is obviously for things like online transactions, Geolocation is usefull for things like knowing into which servers they should send you and others. ZipCode something something physical mail,  First and Last name, don't right now know what exactly what where it is used again but in know it has practical use for the customer. 
One simply shouldn't start fear mongering because they could do something. 

A rouge employee a hacker could though. Also I don't want my friends friends getting spam mail

[GrandProtectorDark]

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

A rouge employee a hacker could though. Also I don't want my friends friends getting spam mail

Life is full of risks and potential dangers. There will always be some guy with bad intentions or Hackers stealing personal information.  
And I also don't have an Idea what that has to do with your original point.

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Life is full of risks and potential dangers. There will always be some guy with bad intentions or Hackers stealing personal information.  
And I also don't have an Idea what that has to do with your original point.

Take Two has no business taking such personal information.

[GrandProtectorDark]

3 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Take Two has no business taking such personal information.

You note that I just wrote why it does have a business with those information.

[Cheif Operations Director]

10 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

You note that I just wrote why it does have a business with those information.

Take Two COULD find me online right now and send a representative to my house and address me by my full name if they wanted to. Would you be fine with that?

[GrandProtectorDark]

6 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Take Two COULD find me online right now and send a representative to my house and address me by my full name if they wanted to. Would you be fine with that?

In the hypotetical scenario, If you actually gave Take Two an actual reason to to personally send someone to your address, then you should look at yourself, not at Take Two.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, GrandProtectorDark said:

In the hypotetical scenario, If you actually gave Take Two an actual reason to to personally send someone to your address, then you should look at yourself, not at Take Two.

MY point is they have the ability to do so. Stop dodging my points with what you perceive to be outsmarting me. Address my analogy. 

 

THEY have the ability to not that they would but they can. Would you be comfortable with that?

[GrandProtectorDark]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

MY point is they have the ability to do so. Stop dodging my points with what you perceive to be outsmarting me. Address my analogy. 

 

THEY have the ability to not that they would but they can. Would you be comfortable with that?

I'm not dodging the point.

The thing is, Why should they. Surley, they have the ability too. But why should it matter in any way. I really don't say why they have any actual reason to do that. And you shouldn't be fear mongering simply because they have the ability too.
Google has probably even more information about everyone and anyone who every touched the internet. But I'm not gonna sit here all day, worrying about what they could do. 

Again, why should they.
Steam and most other online services probably have all the same right, but I can't repeat it enough time. Why should they, what are the reason for them to actually take advantage of those information.  

[AngryBadger]

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Take Two COULD find me online right now and send a representative to my house and address me by my full name if they wanted to. Would you be fine with that?

Only if you gave them that information, they've got no way of getting it unless you enter it into one of their online services, or use a Take Two game that has in app purchases.  There is not place in KSP to enter you bank details, address or social security, so they aren't going to have that information.

[Cheif Operations Director]

49 minutes ago, AngryBadger said:

Only if you gave them that information, they've got no way of getting it unless you enter it into one of their online services, or use a Take Two game that has in app purchases.  There is not place in KSP to enter you bank details, address or social security, so they aren't going to have that information.

The EULA says they can take it off your device.

[/not/pol/]

On 3/8/2018 at 2:50 AM, J.Random said:

Does  it say that you have to use KSP to create mods? "Software may allow you to create content" may just mean that KSP supports mods. "Allow" as in "you can create custom content and the game will (try to) load it". The proper interpretation of this legalese should also be in the FAQ in a human-readable form. Also, are PartTools covered by the same license? Also also, random thought: while FAQ says you can monetize your videos of KSP gameplay, this EULA paragraph leaves T2 rights to DMCA you into oblivion if you say something they don't like in said videos (kinda like Wargaming incident, only worse because this time publisher actually has a leg to stand on).

The line Software may allow you to create content very clearly states that the Software they offer is whats used to create it, Parttools is up in the air because IIRC it was maintained by a member of the forum staff. Also i was not referring to KSP at all in my post. the EULA Does not apply to Mods, the forums TOS on the other hand..

[Cheif Operations Director]

Anyword on an EULA and privacy policy change.

[Galileo]

4 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Anyword on an EULA and privacy policy change.

Not in the hour since your last post.

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Not in the hour since your last post.

How dare I ask a question. Lead him to the gallows!

Why are you so mad at me even on the last discussion.

[Galileo]

22 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

How dare I ask a question. Lead him to the gallows!

Why are you so mad at me even on the last discussion.

I'm not mad, I'm just stating that no, nothing has changed and nothing is likely to change. Things don't work like that or that quickly. 
And lets not try to play a victim card here, I have nothing against you, I just happen to not agree with you and don't like the hysteria you are trying to cause over nothing.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Galileo