These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#721 - 2013-04-22 10:22:29 UTC
[quote=Octoven

I would like to mention this has already happened in the UK with Apple. A person filed a small claims saying that Apple did not have the right to enforce a TOS on OSX software when it wasnt clearly displayed on the packaging before the customer purchased it. As per UK law, all TOS and EULAs must be presented on packaging before bought. In the end the guy made a killing off it and Apple no longer has stores in the UK.[/quote]


Apple did not display the TOS on the packaging != "By clicking Next, I certify that I have read and agree to the EVE Online Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, and to receive account-related communications from CCP electronically."
Anthar Thebess
#722 - 2013-04-22 13:12:42 UTC
Midnight Firestarter
Anger Management
#723 - 2013-04-22 14:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Midnight Firestarter
I suggest you read :-

Gatton Vs T-Mobile

Gatton is an important case because it recognizes that every clickwrap, shrink-wrap, browsewrap and box-wrap contract has an element of procedural unconscionability that requires the court to consider whether the challenged term of the contract is overly harsh or one-sided.

Also

Douglas v. U.S. District Court (Talk America)

In this case, the plaintiff sought to invalidate an arbitration provision like the one in Gatton and a provision stating that New York law would apply to the agreement, because the terms were added to the service agreement after the customer had signed up.

So the "we can do what we want" attitude falls rather short.
Condemor Fistro
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#724 - 2013-04-22 15:53:52 UTC
In my Opinion,

If you buy ISK out of game. The punishment is: 1 billion (you bought it, illegal) = 2 billion (paid). This act, I think is terrible for the economics of the game and more for the CCP games. This is true and CCP should punish more for this.

But if somebody used a Modified client (for example warp to 0), It is bad, but banish for one month. I think the punishment is excessive.

CCP have their rules but i think is wrong, is my opinion.
Xavier Linx
Omni Research
#725 - 2013-04-22 18:03:42 UTC
2350 exceptions for something that is clearly a violation of the EULA? C'mon! I can see why CCP is willing to see through the fingers on cache scraping. But warp to 0 in auto pilot? Ban the cheaters!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#726 - 2013-04-22 18:39:10 UTC
Korvin wrote:
I'm not sure I would tell anything new, but:
http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/laws.shtml

Quote:
Macroing, botting, and automation:
No matter what you do, someone is going to automate the process of playing your world.

Corollary:
Looking at what parts of your game players tend to automate is a good way to determine which parts of the game are tedious and/or not fun.


On this note, I want to ask CCP what they think about the case with 2350 accounts instantly caught on autopilot mod, will they change the distinction between warp on autopilot and manually warping, or will they continue to enforce players to sit 40 min and press the same one button all the time.

Will CCP ever consider to analyze the most automated parts of EVE in a game design perspective?

Also...
Can't...
...stop...
...the...
...progress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqE9zIp0Muk

Warp to zero is no longer an option on auto pilot for a variety of valid game balance reasons. Altering the client to get around it is not okay on any level.

If people could get away with it they would cheerfully modify a number of things like their tracking, ROF, DPS, and how much they can tank. None of those things are given any validity to consider changing based on some peoples desire to win by cheating.

If there is a reason to make a change, or bring in automation of any kind, it needs to come from CCP for valid reasons... not because some people don't like the limitations built into the game for game balance reasons.

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

Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#727 - 2013-04-22 19:24:34 UTC
Wait till they start detecting for people that modified the audio playlist so they can pass out mass bans again like they did in the old days. Who would have guessed that Motley Crue while playing eve was grounds for a ban?

Xavier Linx
Omni Research
#728 - 2013-04-22 20:47:21 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Wait till they start detecting for people that modified the audio playlist so they can pass out mass bans again like they did in the old days. Who would have guessed that Motley Crue while playing eve was grounds for a ban?



Or auto targeting mods that instantly target enemies, and fire your guns...

You can and could turn down ambient and music volume and start a media player. I still think a ban is in order.
Taraxon Taranogas
Doomheim
#729 - 2013-04-23 00:36:35 UTC
I'm glad CCP did it. The little guy/gal has no chance at this game with all the cheaters out there. Warp to zero??? Great I just set my hauler to go pick up contracts and make free ISK while mowing the lawn. The rest of us actually have to use the game mechanics to play and earn ISK. And the big corps out in null with there bot miners and tech moons.....Imagine if they had to play with some element of fairness.
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#730 - 2013-04-23 01:10:44 UTC
Rhivre wrote:
[quote=Octoven

I would like to mention this has already happened in the UK with Apple. A person filed a small claims saying that Apple did not have the right to enforce a TOS on OSX software when it wasnt clearly displayed on the packaging before the customer purchased it. As per UK law, all TOS and EULAs must be presented on packaging before bought. In the end the guy made a killing off it and Apple no longer has stores in the UK.



Apple did not display the TOS on the packaging != "By clicking Next, I certify that I have read and agree to the EVE Online Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, and to receive account-related communications from CCP electronically."[/quote]


Yeah, use THAT excuse in a court of law. The problem is, if said TOS and EULA violates the users rights under that country's laws, such components of the TOS or EULA are recognized under the law as invalid and thus the user is not bound to that contract. The flip side of this of course is that said company also has the right to deny service. No national laws force gaming service to be given. However, in terms of the TOS and EULA national laws trump them everytime. This also applies to privacy laws. The moment CCP scans your computer beyond the scope of the client, it has violated your rights under the law and thus is culpable for it, it doesnt matter what a TOS or EULA says they CAN do, although CCP owns the client and software developed by them, they do not retain the ownership or rights to scan any other part of you computer. If you give that right, and its in violation of the law its illegal plain and simple.
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#731 - 2013-04-23 09:13:52 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Octoven wrote:



Yeah, use THAT excuse in a court of law. The problem is, if said TOS and EULA violates the users rights under that country's laws, such components of the TOS or EULA are recognized under the law as invalid and thus the user is not bound to that contract. The flip side of this of course is that said company also has the right to deny service. No national laws force gaming service to be given. However, in terms of the TOS and EULA national laws trump them everytime. This also applies to privacy laws. The moment CCP scans your computer beyond the scope of the client, it has violated your rights under the law and thus is culpable for it, it doesnt matter what a TOS or EULA says they CAN do, although CCP owns the client and software developed by them, they do not retain the ownership or rights to scan any other part of you computer. If you give that right, and its in violation of the law its illegal plain and simple.

exactly, CCP is allowed to scan it's own files / memory banks allocated to any if it's own files during their respective running.

if, for any reason, they monitor / scan or do WHATHEVER outside of this scope, whathever the content of TOS or EULA is, it is illegal, at least in my country, and could result in very heavy fine, AND an inspection by the privacy legal department, wich could lead to the game being made illegal country-wide, and since a few monthes, this could be extended to the whole...EU.

i suggest CCP to be VERY carefull about this scanning thingy, because if it happen they do it outside of the scope they are allowed (and remember that the player base of EVE i a LOT of ppl who know computer science VERY well), this could end very wrong for them

users right, and especially their rights regarding privacy are being reinforced, and more and more often enforced the hard way for the company not respecting them.
Golden Gnu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#732 - 2013-04-23 09:56:21 UTC
So now we have a EULA that we are allowed to break - because a forum post? ...how does that hold up in court?
Please change the EULA to reflect the forum post or update your forum post to clearly state that it can not overwrite the EULA.
It does not make any sense...

Creator of jEveAssets - the asset manager

"Download is the meaning of life, upload is the meaning of intelligent life"

Tang Tso
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#733 - 2013-04-23 13:23:33 UTC
Well according to the TOS (and I quote):

2. You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)

3. You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies


According to the EULA (and I quote):

You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.

I guess its good CCP Is enforcing ONE of their rules. Maybe someday they will tackle REAL issue affecting game-play; the troll.

Every single time I log into EvE, 'people' in the recruitment and help channels are breaking the TOS and EULA (and don't kid yourself CCP- there are a lot more than 2350 people doing it).

Any time of the day you go into these channels, someone is using obscene, threatening, and racist language towards others and every day CCP doesn't do a thing about it. Every day people in the recruitment channel and help channel are talking about illegal drug use and talking about racist/harmful topics (like "kill all the n*****"). They troll about graphic fornication with varies family members. They joke about **** and bestiality. They harass with email spam for various gay pornography links. They mock and make negative statements about people's religious and moral beliefs. They make harmful and hateful anti-gay remarks.

CCP spent countless man-hours developing a detection apparatus for 2350 accounts. It is kind of sad that they cannot spare a minute or two to go into the recruitment and help channels and moderate. Wouldn't cost them anything to review and respond to these 'people' directly in game.

You make this big deal about 2350 accounts but what about the other 65000 accounts with half of them engaging in "hate-mongering philosophies"?

CCP you need help with your priorities.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#734 - 2013-04-23 15:35:25 UTC
Taraxon Taranogas wrote:
I'm glad CCP did it. The little guy/gal has no chance at this game with all the cheaters out there. Warp to zero??? Great I just set my hauler to go pick up contracts and make free ISK while mowing the lawn. The rest of us actually have to use the game mechanics to play and earn ISK. And the big corps out in null with there bot miners and tech moons.....Imagine if they had to play with some element of fairness.

How is the warp to zero mechanic different from a strip miner module auto cycle? Both allow the player to gain something without actually actively interacting with the client. Why, CCP, do you think that warp to zero is all that bad?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

seth Hendar
I love you miners
#735 - 2013-04-23 15:52:16 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Andy Landen wrote:
Taraxon Taranogas wrote:
I'm glad CCP did it. The little guy/gal has no chance at this game with all the cheaters out there. Warp to zero??? Great I just set my hauler to go pick up contracts and make free ISK while mowing the lawn. The rest of us actually have to use the game mechanics to play and earn ISK. And the big corps out in null with there bot miners and tech moons.....Imagine if they had to play with some element of fairness.

How is the warp to zero mechanic different from a strip miner module auto cycle? Both allow the player to gain something without actually actively interacting with the client. Why, CCP, do you think that warp to zero is all that bad?

because the "warp to 0" bot used python injection mechanics, wich is a "client modification".

the client being the property of CCP, they can ban them for such a reason, and they don't even need to have this stated in EULA in most countrys for it to be legal.

laws protect both customers AND software companies (and i'm fully OK with that).

what i find hard to defend tho, is those ppl having only a 30 days ban instead of perma, but this is at CCP discretion.

also hard to defend, is that isboxer (and likes), wich is clearly abusing game mechanics and EULA are not enforced, especially when CCP claims hard that macro giving unfair advantages are specifically hunted (but the most use is not, weird don't you think? does CCP have interest on their sales? would explain a lot).

well known pupett master or bot running account, despite being reported for monthes still in operation.

bot hunting is a real need, but the way CCP currently handle it raises many question, especially when some major abuse are just looked over, while other "minors" (regarding their in-game impact) are enforced hard and wide.
Tilio Janau
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#736 - 2013-04-23 19:53:20 UTC
I understand that boting is a problem and the bans are vital for a fair game but CCP could you please release a list of programs that are allowed

such as EVEMON, EVE-Central ect. as not knowing is causing some honest players to start uninstalling programs like eve mon in fear of the ban hammer
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#737 - 2013-04-23 23:15:17 UTC
Tilio Janau wrote:
...but CCP could you please release a list of programs that are allowed such as EVEMON, EVE-Central ect. as not knowing is causing some honest players to start uninstalling programs like eve mon in fear of the ban hammer

Providing a specific list is just plain dumb. What happens if a program is placed on the white list, then three point releases later starts doing Bad Things(tm)? Players can realistically say "But you said it's allowed!!!" and CCP will have no recourse other than the same thing we're arguing over now... forum posts made by GMs/DEVs, and nobody on quite the same page, singing the same song. So say they start naming explicit versions... what's to stop the third-party dev from not incrementing their releases?
Sanber Nadino
Absentis Quod Minutor
#738 - 2013-04-24 07:14:22 UTC
You know your EULA section, banning people from capturing and reading packets coming into their private networks is actually unenforceable in several states?
Sanber Nadino
Absentis Quod Minutor
#739 - 2013-04-24 07:38:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sanber Nadino
Sanber Nadino wrote:
You know your EULA section, banning people from capturing and reading packets coming into their private networks is actually unenforceable in several states?


I would like to clarify here, that doing this for the intent of reverse engineering someones product is actually enforceable. However, at least in the state I live in, I have the right to determine if your program's "spy" software is doing more than you say it is.

Also, unless you are going to ban people for having Sniffer or Wireshark running when your client is running, how are you going to stop this? Not to mention how would you detect sniffing appliances or second machines, without your client installed, without seriously overstepping the legal bounds of "environmental snooping" currently allowed by precedent?

I'm not saying that I do, or even would, participate in these types of activities, but as a developer of security software I'm certainly aware of many methods of detection and the differences between what I am allowed to do in business environments and what I am allowed to do in public/home environments. Just because something is in your EULA or TOS agreements, doesn't mean a court won't laugh it out the door, if someone challenges you on it's legality.
Mashie Saldana
Jamgu Initiatives
#740 - 2013-04-24 13:52:57 UTC
I hope the people banned miss out on the 10 year anniversary gifts.