These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you

First post First post
Author
#241 - 2013-04-18 17:15:27 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:

This is something I would love to see. However it's not my department I'm afraid. I will however suggest this to Soundwave and Seagull. But I can't promise anything.


I appreciate your organizational limitations and not wanting to put CCP's foot in it's own mouth. We all know what CCP's foot tastes like around here. Lol

CCP Stillman wrote:

We're not trying to make people that aren't hurting the game out to be bad people. A lot of cool things come out of third party tools. But I also don't want the misconception that has been, admittedly as a result of a mistake on our end, believed to be allowed by the EULA.


I think everyone in this thread would like to hear some words about this along the lines of: "We understand this is a problem with the EULA, and we're going to make this right. We won't have a new EULA tomorrow, but we're going to cook on it for a couple months and do our best to address it within two months of the Odyssey expansion. No bans because of overview pack or cache market cache scraping will occur in the meantime."

Think you and your team can champion that cause within CCP, or find someone who can? You know we'd love you forever...
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2013-04-18 17:15:56 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
Zeph Bowra wrote:

Please give us a CCP-sanctioned way of accessing arbitrary data about the sandbox, beef up your API functionality and capacity, maybe even make it compatible with other real-world systems, and let us continue our relationship with you as it's been: we make the tools and toys to fill in the blanks you and your development team don't have time or resources to produce. It's been a functional relationship up until now. There is absolutely no reason any of us are aware of that would keep this relationship from continuing, other than the current EULA interpretation.

Thanks for your consideration.

This is something I would love to see. However it's not my department I'm afraid. I will however suggest this to Soundwave and Seagull. But I can't promise anything.

We're not trying to make people that aren't hurting the game out to be bad people. A lot of cool things come out of third party tools. But I also don't want the misconception that has been, admittedly as a result of a mistake on our end, believed to be allowed by the EULA.

You are making anyone using 3rd party tools that do any scraping into people that can be banned for any reason. This is bad and you should put a stop to this immediately.
Amarr Empire
#243 - 2013-04-18 17:17:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadl
Whoever wrote the Third Party Policies page really stumbled. Banning cache scraping in such language makes a real mess of many extremely popular (and I would say essential) third party programs. The Third Party Policy fails to "clarify CCP's stance." A couple of simple edits on that page would quite down most of frustration and concerns. Look at the lack of posts about how multiboxing breaks the EULA.

CCP Stillman wrote:
Horatius Caul wrote:

All EULAs are vague, on purpose. Why? Because they are written to allow the first party to cover all eventualities and do whatever they want with you. The EULA also makes it clear that CCP can ban you for whatever reasons they feel like, should it come to that.

This gentleman is spot on. Smile


I don't like this method of doing things, but everyone does it. The simple fact is that the EULA is designed so that CCP Stillman can ban you for essentially anything. Starting up the game is probably some sort of technical violation of the EULA. You don't have any legal rights, CCP keeps all of those for itself. I don't like it, but I have learned to relax and accept the tyranny that game companies make.

That does not mean that they should foolishly frighten their customers with statements which make it seem like they will be banned next. That is why someone at CCP should modify the Third Party Policy and perhaps temper CCP Stillman's statements. Note the difference in statements on multiboxing vs cache scraping:

Dev Blog
... we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA. But the same goes in this case, that unless we determine that people are doing things beyond “multiboxing”, we will not be taking any action.

Third Party Policies
We recognize that some players have engaged in cache scraping in the past, and we want to be clear this practice is not permitted. That said, unless there is an extreme case (i.e., cache scraping combined with other EULA violations), we will not penalize players who have engaged in this practice prior to 15 April 2013. Now that we have made our intent and policy clear, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver appropriate penalties for players that engage in cache scraping after 15 April 2013 (including temporary or permanent bans).

The Dev Blog makes it clear that so long as you are not botting or causing problems multiboxing is ok. The Third Party Policies seem to ban any cache scraping, and prepare them for banning players who do that after April 15. The difference is even more surprising since they both are interpretations of the same paragraph in the EULA 9.C. Now we have seen a number of statements from CCP Stillman and CCP Peligro that everyone should not interpret the Third Party Policy in the way it is apparently written. A simple rewrite along the lines of the Dev Blog would make things much better for them.

Despite all of CCP's "I was there" and "True Stories" hyperbole, this is just a silly computer game. If they ban me or anyone for simply using EVEMON or another program which fills a vital hole in their game then I will go play another game with better security personnel. I will also laugh when I hear that that person left for "other opportunities" or "to spend more time with their family."

P.S. It seems to me that CCP Stillman really has a personal problem with cache scrapping and all of this is just part of his ongoing efforts to remove the cache.
Goonswarm Federation
#244 - 2013-04-18 17:18:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivana Twinkle
I wish, for once, a company would make an EULA that a customer can read without a law degree and is not a billion pages long and takes the better part of a week to read.
They get so complicated that the companies themselves doesn't know what's what.
#245 - 2013-04-18 17:18:19 UTC
We can has riots pls :3

And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell. Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell.

The Bastion
#246 - 2013-04-18 17:18:36 UTC
devblog wrote:
It should be clear to everybody that we have no interest in banning people who do not do anything bad in New Eden. How can you know for sure though? Unfortunately, I’m afraid you’re going to have to take my word on it, but I think it should be pretty obvious that we’re not gonna ban people that are not doing bad things.


As someone who has unfortunately extensive experience with your not banning people for not doing bad things, I am very very concerned about the direction CCP seems to have on their policies.

Yes, ban cheaters, botters and rmt'ers. Every honest player in eve agrees on this!

But please please please be aware that most of your enablers and instigators that you claim to value so much, are the people that are so very vocal about this issue. These are the people that are right now expressing their concern, and you would do well to listen to them CCP. Your most innovative and create players, the people that make eve a thriving community. These are the people that are constantly looking for legal loopholes within the game to give them a competitive advantage over the other players. This is a pvp game after all. Will you punish your most important customers for being this sort of smart, creative player by waving vague threats?

You have declared that almost anything and everything that has been done so far with regards to third party tooling is possibly a bannable offense. And dont give us the bullcrap of 'trusting you will not make the mistake of banning honest players', because you and I both know this is blatantly false! We both know your gm's are mere humans, prone to making mistakes. We both know your detection systems have false positives. Which is all fine and human, but ask us not to believe in your perfection when every one of us with half a brain knows your fallibility.

Will you ever learn, CCP?
Goonswarm Federation
#247 - 2013-04-18 17:18:51 UTC
Seriously though, this is an absolutely terrible idea and you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing it to get past the discussion phase. Clearly cache scraping has not been considered an automatic EULA violation in the past (since you explicitly OKed projects that involved it). Nobody is comfortable with the idea of you calling us all out as e-criminals for using perfectly legitimate tools while reserving the right to ban us at any time. This is a terrible policy and should be rescinded immediately. If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation.
Badfellas Inc.
#248 - 2013-04-18 17:20:00 UTC
Lol at the tears thank you CCP.
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2013-04-18 17:20:11 UTC
Zeph Bowra wrote:
CCP Stillman wrote:

This is something I would love to see. However it's not my department I'm afraid. I will however suggest this to Soundwave and Seagull. But I can't promise anything.


I appreciate your organizational limitations and not wanting to put CCP's foot in it's own mouth. We all know what CCP's foot tastes like around here. Lol

CCP Stillman wrote:

We're not trying to make people that aren't hurting the game out to be bad people. A lot of cool things come out of third party tools. But I also don't want the misconception that has been, admittedly as a result of a mistake on our end, believed to be allowed by the EULA.


I think everyone in this thread would like to hear some words about this along the lines of: "We understand this is a problem with the EULA, and we're going to make this right. We won't have a new EULA tomorrow, but we're going to cook on it for a couple months and do our best to address it within two months of the Odyssey expansion. No bans because of overview pack or cache market cache scraping will occur in the meantime."

Think you and your team can champion that cause within CCP, or find someone who can? You know we'd love you forever...


Reasonable post.

We could really use some data on any Market API that can be created to replace this functionality.
Vae. Victis.
#250 - 2013-04-18 17:21:05 UTC
Fade Toblack wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
IgnoreTheDroid wrote:

Laws are different depending on where you live if you didn't know. e-Lawyer detected. Not everyone has the same consumer protection laws.

Which are not going to come into effect for a non-essential service like a game.


Actually it doesn't matter how essential the service is. The aim of consumer protection laws are simply to offset the advantage that corporate interests with deep pockets have.

Whilst we still somewhat get screwed over by the large corporates over here in the EU. It's a hell of a lot better than in the US.

You have completely misunderstood the purpose and intent of consumer protection laws.

Lets just leave this with if you do get yourself banned for some reason, let us know how that legally works out for you. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Goonswarm Federation
#251 - 2013-04-18 17:21:13 UTC
Maybe we can walk in stations now. That would be pretty cool.
Caldari State
#252 - 2013-04-18 17:22:02 UTC
Haha.

I mean, you are acting like retards right now CCP, but 9.C is really really dumb.

Quote:

...and you hereby expressly waive any legal rights you may have to do so...


What is wrong with you?
Goonswarm Federation
#253 - 2013-04-18 17:22:25 UTC
I can use autohotkey to automate certain timing for smartbombing battleships. This maximises the number of smartbomb cycles I can get off whilst neuted.

Is this against the EULA? I can do a pretty good approximation of this manually, but it is more open to error and missing the crucial third cycle.

Tactical Narcotics Team
#254 - 2013-04-18 17:22:30 UTC
Artctura's CSM blog

Highlights

Quote:

The simple fact is, EVE does not now, and likely in the long term, will not have, the information that drives the likes of EVE Central and portions of EVEMon through it’s API. There is no way that CCP can claim ignorance of these site’s existence. None. They knew that this has been going on for a long time, and have never taken previous steps to enforce it under the above referenced EULA clause. The line that they’re specifically driving this truck through is “from any information accessible through the System“. Lets continue to play devil’s advocate. I wrote a starbase tracking piece of software. The information on which modules are linked to which tower is ONLY available in game. Through the API you only know the relative positions in space. Let’s say I reverse engineered the math to compare positions and link modules to their towers. Am I now in violation of the above line? By the logic employed by CCP, I am.

What changed? I have no idea. I’m hoping that this is a horrible mistake on behalf of a CCP employee who didn’t understand either. Make your voice heard in the above thread so CCP understands that this is simply not acceptable enforcement of their EULA and their interpretation is wrong.


Amarr Empire
#255 - 2013-04-18 17:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadl
Ivana Twinkle wrote:
I wish, for once, a company would make an EULA that a customer can read without a law degree.
They get so complicated that the companies themselves doesn't know what's what.


Here you go. This should be good for any piece of software you ever buy.

1) We make no guaranties that this program will do anything that our advertising claimed or is useful in any way.

2) We make no guaranties that you or everything around you will not suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of our program.

3) We reserve the right to do anything we like to you no mater what we might say otherwise, including disconnecting you, and destroying your ideas, and blaming you.

4) Otherwise please enjoy our game!
C C P Alliance
#256 - 2013-04-18 17:24:13 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation.

The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.

We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier.

Just a random dude in Team Security.

Minmatar Republic
#257 - 2013-04-18 17:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
CCP Stillman wrote:
Fade Toblack wrote:

Hell, let's take this further. On one hand, in the devblog you state that you'll never approve any piece of 3rd party software, meanwhile individual CCP staff are stating that people won't get banned for using EveMon - surely that's an endorsement of a particular piece of 3rd party software?

Do you think people should be banned for using EveMon?

yes, I do.

It's been made clear that running EVEMon (under default settings) post April 15th is illegal and there should be consequences for that.

How are users supposed to take your policies seriously (and abide by them as a result) if the policies are not enforced?

Make it a slap on the wrist (a short temp ban) if you want to but punish violators in some way so the message gets out that the EULA is actually a thing that matters (and which CCP will enforce).

.

Vae. Victis.
#258 - 2013-04-18 17:25:43 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Seriously though, this is an absolutely terrible idea and you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing it to get past the discussion phase. Clearly cache scraping has not been considered an automatic EULA violation in the past (since you explicitly OKed projects that involved it). Nobody is comfortable with the idea of you calling us all out as e-criminals for using perfectly legitimate tools while reserving the right to ban us at any time. This is a terrible policy and should be rescinded immediately. If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation.

Once you start listing specific exceptions you open loop holes that can be exploited. That's why people that have questionable motives lobby even harder than legitimate software developers for lists of exceptions.

Until a viable alternative is fully implemented (Crest) this is likely the best you are going to get.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Goonswarm Federation
#259 - 2013-04-18 17:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Isphirel
What is even the point of having an EULA if your official stance is that most players are in violation of it, but benevolent as you are you won't ban most of them? Either have the EULA explicitly allow things that you don't intend to enforce (eg. things that are not botting) so that players who aren't botting can feel safe, or just throw it out completely and say you'll ban anybody whenever.

If your official policy is selective enforcement, then any written rule set is completely meaningless.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#260 - 2013-04-18 17:28:17 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation.

The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.

We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier.


So instead you just declare any player who uses EVE Central, EVE Mon, any starbase tracking software, anyone who uses the localization info and any of the other myriad of 3rd party apps that cache scrape as a EULA violator?

You simply CANNOT claim that you were not aware of EVE Central or EVE Mon and how they got their data.
Forum Jump