Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Amaterasu_Regale

New EULA is incredibly unethical.

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
176 posts
1,950 battles



5.4 Ownership of Your Account. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN YOUR ACCOUNT, AND THAT ALL RIGHTS IN AND TO YOUR ACCOUNT ARE AND SHALL FOREVER BE OWNED BY AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF WARGAMING. YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO CLAIM, RIGHT, TITLE, OWNERSHIP, OR OTHER PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE ADDITIONAL FEATURES (AS DEFINED BELOW) THAT YOU UNLOCK OR ACCUMULATE, REGARDLESS OF ANY CONSIDERATION OFFERED OR PAID IN EXCHANGE FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL FEATURES. FURTHERMORE, WARGAMING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE IN ANY MANNER FOR THE DESTRUCTION, DELETION, MODIFICATION, IMPAIRMENT, HACKING, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGE OR LOSS OF ANY KIND CAUSED TO THE GAME CONTENT OR ADDITIONAL FEATURES, INCLUDING THE DELETION OF GAME CONTENT OR ADDITIONAL FEATURES UPON THE TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION OF YOUR ACCOUNT.

 

6.4.6 we may change, replace, remove access to or update the Content at any time at our sole discretion;

 

9.3.6 the Fansite will not post material that is disparaging, illegal or infringes on the rights of any third party or that damages (or that might damage) the reputation of Wargaming or of any of the Games;

 

I'm almost sure that 5.4 is actually illegal in the European Union. Regardless of the legality, it's incredibly unethical, despite being a common practice among MMOs to have the player account essentially be a leaseholding. Doesn't make it any less unethical. 9.3.6 basically says that any player owned site can be construed as damaging Wargaming's reputation (SirFoch, anyone?). It gives WarGaming an extremely easy get out clause as an excuse to censor player opinions if they don't deem something acceptable. Even with express statement from Wargaming that they won't randomly blam people's sites for "damaging" their reputation, it is again, unethical. 6.4.6 also feels incredibly illegal, especially in regards to premiums that people have paid for.

 

 Any WG staff want to try to explain this in ways that make it sound less draconian? EULA link for anyone who wants it, just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting WarGaming here:

http://legal.na.wargaming.net/en/end-user-license-agreement-new/

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,684 posts
9,234 battles

I already made a comment about that on TAP
Essentially, a EULA is not law.
Anything can be disputed in court.

That point about censoring fansites in a game EULA is ridiculous though.
First of all, it makes no goddamn sense. Making you accept rules in a game pertaining to third party websites unaffiliated with WG? What?

Second of all, it's hilarious vague. Hell, this very topic could fall under that rule, and have ingame repercussions for the people posting.


I'm sure nothing bad will happen, especially in the EU where an EULA is almost meaningless.
However, should it happen, I urge anyone affected to lawyer up and brew a media storm.
I'm sure the media would love a story about an ex Belarussian company set up in an EU taxhaven censoring journalistic content, and threatening your pseudo-ownership of ingame content bought with your real money.
 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,812 battles

So let me get it Right....the OP thinks he buys it so ownership (pun intended:Smile_honoring:) should be his? dont that means when WoWS shuts down WG has to give us our Money back because shuting down the Servers denys us our property?. 

Oh Boy you sure didnt heared of mobile gaming were shuting down after tehy milked you for all teh Money they can and then Opening up a new game with simular mechanics is comon..... you canot own a digital good that requires someone else to Keep up an Server.....that should be understandable for anyone with more than 3 braincells. The legal mumbo Jumbo is the natural consequence of that fact......

 

why are you so mifed anyway since WG acounts are semi united you think tehy shut down or are you just bored and try to open a can of Worms nobody cares About? Nobody takes your acount away unless you violate the rules. Foch lost his CC Status not his acount. Unless you cheat  or go into Chat and use REALLY offensiv behavor your Pretty safe and in most cases you get warnings 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONI]
Players
1,063 posts
9,326 battles

Fochgate was the result of one overzealous mod and as soon as it raised a stink, the higher-ups stepped in because it was really bad PR for WG. Similarly for the ichase thing.That's what you can expect from such situations, what it says in the EULA is quite irrelevant. WG aren't going to use it stop criticism or anything like that because it would just lead to a much larger PR nightmare. The Streizand effect would hit them right in the face, they'd retract everything and that woud be that. In general, censorship doesn't work for quashing dissent unless you control the media, which WG do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
1,422 posts
9,970 battles

As ppl pointed out, we have democracy....

 

Freedom is not  something what we brag about (like USA),  but EU does good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,812 battles
12 minutes ago, MoveZig said:

Fochgate was the result of one overzealous mod and as soon as it raised a stink, the higher-ups stepped in because it was really bad PR for WG. Similarly for the ichase thing.That's what you can expect from such situations, what it says in the EULA is quite irrelevant. WG aren't going to use it stop criticism or anything like that because it would just lead to a much larger PR nightmare. In general, censorship doesn't work for quashing dissent unless you control the media, which WG do not.

How you promote your game is up to the developer. Take Nintendo you Youtube them you can be sure to get demonytized really fast. WG has ist own guidlines so does any other Company. No one trys to take your acounts away thogh unless you do stuff In game or in Forum going agist their rules and as i said before even then unless you did something nuklear you get a waring or timed acout Suspension 1st. look at my last post if you want to know what the EULA part is really for. Pulling taht out for censorship is rather strange. 

 

If you really want to see something About censoring  you should look up that likage tax the EU trys to Sneak thogh AGAIN to make Mainstream media relevant again and trys to kill ANY Forums or fair use of copyrighted material. Heck nearly all Avatars would be illigal soon unless you painted it yourself.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,481 posts
7,965 battles

EULA and Consumer Rights always clash.

That doesn't make it illegal per se, it just means that it will not hold up in many cases when it gets challenged.

 

54 minutes ago, The_Dunk_Squad said:

9.3.6 basically says that any player owned site can be construed as damaging Wargaming's reputation (SirFoch, anyone?). It gives WarGaming an extremely easy get out clause as an excuse to censor player opinions if they don't deem something acceptable.

Isn't this just to use their copyrighted material, like logos and stuff (for fansites). Critique is already covered by fair use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,812 battles
3 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

EULA and Consumer Rights always clash.

That doesn't make it illegal per se, it just means that it will not hold up in many cases when it gets challenged.

 

Isn't this just to use their copyrighted material, like logos and stuff (for fansites). Critique is already covered by fair use.

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,233 posts
14,314 battles
1 hour ago, The_Dunk_Squad said:

I'm almost sure that 5.4 is actually illegal in the European Union.

In the US it would be questionable, as once things get into court lots can happen. 

 

"The mother — who appears to be either a lawyer, a friend or family member of one, or a very dedicated researcher — lays out an impressive case for why the suit against her son should be thrown out. Her argument boils down to the fact that her son did not develop the cheats, nor did he distribute them. Instead, he simply downloaded them from a popular cheating website and streamed himself using the cheats.

Not only that, but the mother makes a convincing argument that it would be difficult for Epic to prove in court that her underage son was bound by its end user licensing agreement (EULA) given that Fortnite is a free-to-play game and its EULA did not contain an option for underage users to obtain parental consent, which she says she never gave. It would also be difficult for Epic to prove that the act of cheating harmed its ability to make a profit considering the game’s revenue stream is restricted to microtransaction purchases of cosmetic in-game items." 

 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/27/16707562/epic-games-fortnite-cheating-lawsuit-debate-14-year-old-kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
869 posts
5,115 battles
1 hour ago, MoveZig said:

 WG aren't going to use it stop criticism or anything like that because it would just lead to a much larger PR nightmare.

I would think that if WG had no intention of doing so then there would be no need for the clause in the EULA in the first place.

 

There is a world of difference in taking action against a YouTuber (that has a decent following) than say me - no channel, no followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
772 posts
12,002 battles

If this is just for the North American site, then why were people required to accept this EULA when they signed in after the update on Thursday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
467 posts
245 battles

So much for the land of the free.

 

luckily this wont affect eu yet but i guess they could find some loophole to exploit.

 

censorship wouldnt work against youtubers like sirfoch but definitely against single users like most of the people on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HARF]
Players
315 posts
10,086 battles

The things I bought previously are not covered by that eula. They cannot claim retrospectively that this is the case, It would be like buying a car from a dealership and 12 months later the dealership telling you that you are only leasing the car.

 

Now that the EULA is in place, I will not buy anything else. Simples.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NED]
Players
4,194 posts
11,706 battles

tl;dr (all). What's your point OP? All that they're saying (AFAIK): you're in my house, accept my rules or PO. That's their perfect right. It's your ground right to think whatever you want but in your house, you're in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONI]
Players
1,063 posts
9,326 battles
12 hours ago, BrusilovX said:

There is a world of difference in taking action against a YouTuber (that has a decent following) than say me - no channel, no followers.

 

It's true that random players don't have the influence of YTers, but we do have a voice on reddit and other communities. There are only so many times WG could drop the banhammer on a trash-talker before it becomes a scandal. And frankly, I don't see why they'd ban an entire account instead of just a chat ban and forum ban. If you close an account, you lose a customer, your playerbase becomes smaller and you have one very angry person railing at you online. Which you have no power to stop beyond your own reach. Which is why I said you really can't stop criticism that way, you only make it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
264 posts
6,964 battles

Interesting point of attention: if you'd bring this to any European court, a european judge will crap on the fact that you signed this EULA.

As stated:

 

12.1 This EULA and any dispute, claim or obligation (whether contractual or non-contractual) arising out of or in connection with it or its subject matter or formation shall be governed by the laws of Cyprus, unless otherwise required by the law of the country where the user has his habitual residence.

12.2 We and you submit all the aforementioned disputes to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country whose laws are applicable subject to article 1 of the present section 12 "Governing (Applicable) Law and Jurisdiction".

In the EU, a company is always required to follow laws from the customer they are dealing with, not the other way around (i.e. we don't follow cyprus rules because WG sits there, WG follows our rules if necessary). 

So don't you guys worry about this. Also, as pointed out by someone else, the EU EULA is much better than the NA already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles

Is it just me or could the wording of the EULA mean they can now "re-balance" certain problem premiums while basically saying the people who bought them don't have a legal leg to stand on? I would cautiously say this is a good thing, insurance policy against refund backlash opening the door to nerfing premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PONY]
[PONY]
Beta Tester
4,251 posts
7,147 battles

Why noone pointed out, that we dont own Windows on our Computers? We only have the right to use it... sounds familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,812 battles
43 minutes ago, Igarigen said:

Why noone pointed out, that we dont own Windows on our Computers? We only have the right to use it... sounds familiar.

Because some Tinhats might belive Microsoft will shut them down if they do that?? to censor them because thats good buisniss?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
264 posts
6,964 battles
50 minutes ago, VC381 said:

Is it just me or could the wording of the EULA mean they can now "re-balance" certain problem premiums while basically saying the people who bought them don't have a legal leg to stand on? I would cautiously say this is a good thing, insurance policy against refund backlash opening the door to nerfing premiums.

Nah thats never going to happen, because nerfing premiums is hardly legally allowed (they do actually present monetary value, although WG doesnt say this in their EULA). 

 

Wargamings policy on premium balancing has always been a clear and comfortable one: NEVER nerf a premium. You can buff it, you can rework it, but you can't straight out nerf it. What  you can do however is simply buff every co-tier ship while not buffing the premiums (what they did in WoT, rendering the old school premium TDs useless).

The EU brings great protection in such matters, especially when it comes to actually losing ships or accounts. Shame for our friends in the UK who will soon be completely unprotected, since they probably will get a EULA worse than the NA one haha
Under that note; the EU EULA implementation of course varies for EU and non EU- countries. Anyone living in a EU country can feel really safe on this issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,670 posts
10,879 battles
26 minutes ago, Isoruku_Yamamoto said:

Nah thats never going to happen, because nerfing premiums is hardly legally allowed 

It is common practice in the gaming industry to change paid content.

I know of no court ruling that declared that illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles
33 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It is common practice in the gaming industry to change paid content.

I know of no court ruling that declared that illegal.

 

Indeed, but WG have failed to set proper contractual expectations of what exactly you are buying when paying for a premium ship. In theory, you are buying a ship with improved earnings and penalty-free captain retraining. In other words, pay to progress. But some people read it as paying for the exact abilities of the ship and perceived OP performance, which paints WG into a corner regarding changing these ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×