These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

@CCP - breach of national laws

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Niko Takahashi
Yoshitomi Group
#221 - 2012-05-03 13:10:38 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Aren't alliance mails those things sent to dozens of anonymous strangers at the same time?

"You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy regarding communications you make in the Game, whether through private in-Game messaging, during chat, or in chat rooms."

Looks like you agreed already


Clicking a button in an Eula does not legally mean anything. Do not know about the USA but under my countries law whatever electronic form to be legally enforceable it has to have my registered ectronic signature attached.

Meaning you can click away and agree to whatever but in the end of the day they have totally nothing.

However the company as a physicall entity has to fulfill the legal requirements and amount of protective eula blabber is going to change that.

You can enforce it normally.

Tldr
Clicking eula agree button means crap and you can not create contract between two parties that is in conflict with the legislation.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#222 - 2012-05-03 13:24:03 UTC
Niko Takahashi wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Aren't alliance mails those things sent to dozens of anonymous strangers at the same time?

"You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy regarding communications you make in the Game, whether through private in-Game messaging, during chat, or in chat rooms."

Looks like you agreed already


Clicking a button in an Eula does not legally mean anything. Do not know about the USA but under my countries law whatever electronic form to be legally enforceable it has to have my registered ectronic signature attached.

Meaning you can click away and agree to whatever but in the end of the day they have totally nothing.

However the company as a physicall entity has to fulfill the legal requirements and amount of protective eula blabber is going to change that.

You can enforce it normally.

Tldr
Clicking eula agree button means crap and you can not create contract between two parties that is in conflict with the legislation.


Which Country is that?

Adapt or Die
Alnaria Fizolna
Eloria Corporation
#223 - 2012-05-03 13:25:25 UTC
If the EULA contains parts not permitted in your country...
... what're you doing accepting it anyway?
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#224 - 2012-05-03 13:32:02 UTC
Niko Takahashi wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Aren't alliance mails those things sent to dozens of anonymous strangers at the same time?

"You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy regarding communications you make in the Game, whether through private in-Game messaging, during chat, or in chat rooms."

Looks like you agreed already


Clicking a button in an Eula does not legally mean anything. Do not know about the USA but under my countries law whatever electronic form to be legally enforceable it has to have my registered ectronic signature attached.

Meaning you can click away and agree to whatever but in the end of the day they have totally nothing.

However the company as a physicall entity has to fulfill the legal requirements and amount of protective eula blabber is going to change that.

You can enforce it normally.

Tldr
Clicking eula agree button means crap and you can not create contract between two parties that is in conflict with the legislation.


I don't think you are correct. Unless you live in some 3rd world country with odd law or no law at all. Nearly every country out there has special laws for software and handling of it. And there is usually written that EULA is binding article (unless it breaks any other law in which case it is void and you cant use that particular product). For general forms, contracts (non software oriented) the electronic signature might be required though.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#225 - 2012-05-03 13:56:10 UTC
One of the misunderstandings about EULAs and TOS's is that some people believe that such agreements are never legally binding. But what is ignored is how they might be considered NOT legally binding and therefore void or null.

It is legally binding if and when there are the following.

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
4. Legality

Please note that by legality it doesn't mean whether or not a contract is acceptable in general but whether the provisions or goal(s) stated on the contract are allowed in the state or country they are occurring in. For example: CCP stated in the EULA that there are no expectations of privacy in the eve-mail system and have stated that all communications between two or more players through such a system is not private at all. This is mainly because of its in-game nature and purpose. If you post personally identifiable information through such a medium such as you real-life medical records or your real-life bank account information, then it is the fault of the end-user for transmitting such data through a highly insecure channel.

Now, let's change this up a bit and say that CCP wants to add a provision that states that all players are subject to have their homes broken into and have their parents/kids taken in for experimentation to become a humancentipad for Apple. At that point, the EULA/TOS because void because that provision violates the law. The same can be said if the contract involved illegal drugs as part of the transaction and so on.

If the provisions of the contract don't violate any laws and that considerations are met and that an offer is made and the offer is accepted, then contract is valid and enforceable. The contract doesn't even have to be in some kind of special paper. Contracts can be electronic but have to be conspicuous, they can be written on a napkin at a dinner table in a restaurant, or tattooed on your body.

Adapt or Die
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#226 - 2012-05-03 14:00:34 UTC
This is a horrible thread and you are all horrible people. There is no facepalm big enough to describe all this.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#227 - 2012-05-03 14:01:52 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
This is a horrible thread and you are all horrible people. There is no facepalm big enough to describe all this.


Sorry, facepalms are not mentioned on the contract.

Adapt or Die
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#228 - 2012-05-03 14:34:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Alright, while I first thought "WTH?", after some thinking , I fear the OP does have a bit of point, depending in which country an offender / offended person lives.

Germany for example (oh, and ofc, IANAL):

1. Parts of TOS / an EULA that contradict current law or are 'under current cirumstances, surprising' are void (BGB §305 ff.).
Consequence of this is, that CCP does not have the rights on your written communication, the same way Facebook doesn't. If you post something pubicly on FB you expect everyone to see it, just like you expect everyone to see your character bio. If you sent someone (or a group of people) a message in FB, you expect only them to recieve it - same with EveMails.

2. Electronic communication directed towards an enclosed circle (=non-public) is within the private sphere and thus may not be publicly disclosed. (StGB §202 / OLG Köln 28 O 178/06)
If you send an EveMail to distinct group of players, you expect the mail only to be recieved by those that are, at the time of the transmission, part of that group. This is NOT public communication, since at any given time there is a set amount of members in the group.
Thus this mail is part of your private sphere, and if someone discloses this mail publicly, he violates your private sphere. (If he does that against your will, that is)

As you can see, it's not as simple as it might look on first glance.

Of course the OPs claim that CCP would be liable in this is complete nonsense.
That would be like.. a mail provider beeing liable for someone reading his mails via POP3 and automatically posting them on your public webspace. :shakes head:

The person that publishs the mail is responsible, and since we are talking about API usage, it's the person that created the API key and thus made public access possible.
Again, this all only has relevance if the sender of a mail actually demands de-publication, compensation whatsnot and succeeds with that. (... in Germany, or whatever country has similar laws)

(Correct me if I was wrong somewhere.)
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#229 - 2012-05-03 14:48:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Alright, while I first thought "WTH?", after some thinking , I fear the OP does have a bit of point, depending in which country an offender / offended person lives.

Germany for example (oh, and ofc, IANAL):

1. Parts of TOS / an EULA that contradict current law or are 'under current cirumstances, surprising' are void (BGB §305 ff.).
Consequence of this is, that CCP does not the rights on your written communication, the same way Facebook doesn't. If you post something pubicly on FB you expect everyone to see it, just like you expect everyone to see your character bio. If you sent someone (or a group of people) a message in FB, you expect only them to recieve it - same with EveMails.

2. Electronic communication directed towards an enclosed circle (=non-public) is within the private sphere and thus may not be publicly disclosed. (StGB §202 / OLG Köln 28 O 178/06)
If you send an EveMail to distinct group of players, you expect the mail only to be recieved by those that are, at the time of the transmission, part of that group. This is NOT public communication, since at any given time there is a set amount of members in the group.
Thus this mail is part of your private sphere, and if someone discloses this mail publicly, he violates your private sphere. (If he does that against your will, that is)

As you can see, it's not as simple as it might look on first glance.

Of course the OPs claim that CCP would be liable in this is complete nonsense.

The person that publishs the mail is responsible, and since we are talking about API usage, it's the person that created the API key and thus made public access possible.
Again, this all only has relevance if the sender of a mail actually demands de-publication, compensation whatsnot and succeeds with that. (... in Germany, or whatever country has similar laws)

(Correct me if I was wrong somewhere.)


Correct. As stated before, the provisions of the contract have to be legal in the country in which it was accepted. Otherwise, it is void. However, we are only talking about Germany here. Laws differ in every country.

PS:

In regards to the post I made about the page in which the case is mentioned on the book I cited, it turned out that the case is not mentioned. The quotes I posted on page 11 of the thread were copied from the powerpoint. Apparently, the case is not listed in the book and was only provided by my instructor as a reference (the page number was an accident), but I did find the case listed here:

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-murphy/the-bargain-relationship/specht-v-netscape-communications-corporation/

Another posted by Harvard.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/Specht_v_Netscape.pdf

Adapt or Die
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#230 - 2012-05-03 15:04:32 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Now, let's change this up a bit and say that CCP wants to add a provision that states that all players are subject to have their homes broken into and have their parents/kids taken in for experimentation to become a humancentipad for Apple. At that point, the EULA/TOS because void because that provision violates the law. The same can be said if the contract involved illegal drugs as part of the transaction and so on.

If the provisions of the contract don't violate any laws and that considerations are met and that an offer is made and the offer is accepted, then contract is valid and enforceable. The contract doesn't even have to be in some kind of special paper. Contracts can be electronic but have to be conspicuous, they can be written on a napkin at a dinner table in a restaurant, or tattooed on your body.


Actually the severance clause of the contract would mean that only the parts that are illegal are excluded, the remainder of the contract remains in effect. (Unless of course a judge decides to throw the entire contract out, but that would only occur in situations where so much has been excluded that it makes no sense for the rest to be in effect.)
Geil Ding
Perkone
Caldari State
#231 - 2012-05-03 15:08:53 UTC
Discussing law in a thread like these is difficult and a bit poinless.. Every nation has its own laws. Germany has very strict privacy laws where the USA seems to have no privacy laws at all Blink

My point is, is that I think there might me some national laws being broken. While CCP is not breaking the law themselves, they are facilitating this. This case is different from a mail provider as you have to have the account login to retrieve mails which will also give total control to that account. With the API you can only retrieve information and is made with the intention to share with others.
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#232 - 2012-05-03 17:01:47 UTC
Geil Ding wrote:
[...] While CCP is not breaking the law themselves, they are facilitating this. This case is different from a mail provider as you have to have the account login to retrieve mails which will also give total control to that account. With the API you can only retrieve information and is made with the intention to share with others.


Well, slightly different example then.. let's say I share my personal Google Calendar with my family, for that I gave them the private URL to the calendar.
When someone sends me a mail now that contains an appointment, this will be visible on my calendar. This is an option provided by the calendar and thus intended by Google.
Now is Google to blame, when someone else gets hold of my private calendar URL, publishes the calendar on his public website and thus makes all appointment mails publicly available?
Geil Ding
Perkone
Caldari State
#233 - 2012-05-03 17:20:27 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Geil Ding wrote:
[...] While CCP is not breaking the law themselves, they are facilitating this. This case is different from a mail provider as you have to have the account login to retrieve mails which will also give total control to that account. With the API you can only retrieve information and is made with the intention to share with others.


Well, slightly different example then.. let's say I share my personal Google Calendar with my family, for that I gave them the private URL to the calendar.
When someone sends me a mail now that contains an appointment, this will be visible on my calendar. This is an option provided by the calendar and thus intended by Google.
Now is Google to blame, when someone else gets hold of my private calendar URL, publishes the calendar on his public website and thus makes all appointment mails publicly available?


The URL is not private if it is accessible by everybody. At best it is a hidden URL. Some very known Torrent sites (won't post the names) are also found guilty (even with their base of operations outside the country) by facilitating breaking the law, yet they do not post the information themselves.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#234 - 2012-05-03 17:25:06 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Geil Ding wrote:
[...] While CCP is not breaking the law themselves, they are facilitating this. This case is different from a mail provider as you have to have the account login to retrieve mails which will also give total control to that account. With the API you can only retrieve information and is made with the intention to share with others.


Well, slightly different example then.. let's say I share my personal Google Calendar with my family, for that I gave them the private URL to the calendar.
When someone sends me a mail now that contains an appointment, this will be visible on my calendar. This is an option provided by the calendar and thus intended by Google.
Now is Google to blame, when someone else gets hold of my private calendar URL, publishes the calendar on his public website and thus makes all appointment mails publicly available?


I can see plenty of similarities there. In either case, whether its regarding a calendar URL or an eve API, the business is not to blame for the mishandling of the link in question and the information provided. However, both are designed to be disabled by the original author of the URL or API at any time as intended by Google and CCP Games.

But it is still murky when it comes to various laws around the world. Even if the incident occurred in the US, the laws are further governed by the state laws in addition to the federal laws. The laws of each country are so intricate and complex that it is no wonder that being a lawyer is such a very popular profession.

Adapt or Die
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#235 - 2012-05-03 17:26:11 UTC
lol

Your business education is terrible Henry. Would you be so kind as to tell us the name of your school?
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#236 - 2012-05-03 17:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Fannie Maes wrote:
lol

Your business education is terrible Henry. Would you be so kind as to tell us the name of your school?


Embry Riddle Aeronautical Univ. (yes, they teach business law), but it's not relevant to this discussion.

My sources are usually gathered from websites of law schools such as Harvard University and books I have run into such as Roger LeRoy Miller's Fundamentals of Business Law: Summarized Cases 9th Edition, which I referenced earlier. I believe this is the current edition.

No, my business education is not terrible. I have had to do accounting work with various businesses and have learned quite a lot about contracts (implied, expressed, or even quasi) in the past.

At least I have done my research into the matter of EULA's and TOS's and have provided my sources to back them up.

===EDIT===

I took the time to read some of the evemails posted on the EveSkunks website that the OP mentioned. I only see in-game intel being shared regarding POS attacks, spy alerts, etc. I'm not sure how any of this is going to be recognized in a real-world court of law when there is absolutely no personally identifiable information of the players who are involved because the character names are all fictitious or assumed to be fictitious and therefore keeping the players anonymous. In this case, I doubt any player would want to pursue a legal case on the matter given the anonymity of the game. But I could be wrong and some player might actually try to see what happens. But until then, we can only provide educated guesses.

Have fun.

Adapt or Die
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#237 - 2012-05-03 18:05:17 UTC
PS:

Fannie, I'm gonna be polite and give you one more chance to please reference the case that negatively affected an End-User License Agreement in a trial.

Please?

Adapt or Die
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#238 - 2012-05-03 18:12:25 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
PS:

Fannie, I'm gonna be polite and give you one more chance to please reference the case that negatively affected an End-User License Agreement in a trial.

Please?



No thank you Blink As I stated previously, I prefer you live in ignorance and keep making an ass of yourself. Thanks for naming your school, I am sure it is school with excellent standards providing your reading material at harvard university website, I am sure your class starts with Wiki page on EULA & TOS than moves on to google docs.

Have a good day and I suggest you always read EULA and TOS agreements in the future, even for a Firefox utility, I would hate to see you accidentally sell your soul to to a Nigerian prince.

Big smile
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#239 - 2012-05-03 18:20:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Fannie Maes wrote:
Henry Haphorn wrote:
PS:

Fannie, I'm gonna be polite and give you one more chance to please reference the case that negatively affected an End-User License Agreement in a trial.

Please?



No thank you Blink As I stated previously, I prefer you live in ignorance and keep making an ass of yourself. Thanks for naming your school, I am sure it is school with excellent standards providing your reading material at harvard university website, I am sure your class starts with Wiki page on EULA & TOS than moves on to google docs.

Have a good day and I suggest you always read EULA and TOS agreements in the future, even for a Firefox utility, I would hate to see you accidentally sell your soul to to a Nigerian prince.

Big smile


LOL

Interesting. Very interesting.Lol

You trolled me long enough, I'll give you that. Now have fun with your self-indulgence.Cool

===Obligatory EDIT===

You need a better institution as well. The Science and Trade Institute of the Caldari State is not helping you with your argument, but I can clearly see now that it's a great place to learn to be a troll.

Adapt or Die
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#240 - 2012-05-03 18:22:32 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:
Henry Haphorn wrote:
PS:

Fannie, I'm gonna be polite and give you one more chance to please reference the case that negatively affected an End-User License Agreement in a trial.

Please?



No thank you Blink As I stated previously, I prefer you live in ignorance and keep making an ass of yourself. Thanks for naming your school, I am sure it is school with excellent standards providing your reading material at harvard university website, I am sure your class starts with Wiki page on EULA & TOS than moves on to google docs.

Have a good day and I suggest you always read EULA and TOS agreements in the future, even for a Firefox utility, I would hate to see you accidentally sell your soul to to a Nigerian prince.

Big smile


LOL

Interesting. Very interesting.Lol

You trolled me long enough, I'll give you that. Now have fun with your self-indulgence.Cool


This whole thread is a bad thread.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]