Word to the wise: No matter how many used copies of Everquest you buy offa Ebay, Sony isn't going to give you another key.

@ CariElf: do you really think a EULA (any company, not just StarDocks) would hold up in court, they've never been tested. A EULA isn't a legal contract no matter what Microsoft says. IANAL, but I know quite a few.

That being said, I think you guys (SD) are doing a great job, keep it up.

~SDC~

It depends where you live as to how much you can reasonably expect a EULA to hold. For instance, in Virginia where I live, the state legislature gave EULAs the force of state law to keep in good with the large number of tech companies based in Northern Virginia. I know there's more states that have passed identical laws but I can't recall them at the moment.

So, where I live, all Stardock would have to do is make a complaint to the police to have action taken. Draconian, but the reality of a nation which puts the powers and protections of the corporations and state institutions far above the rights of the individual any more.

My personal opinion is that companies should not be able to stop the transfer of a basic usage license (i.e. they should not be able to do the Microsoft activation b.s. where it's impossible to even install or otherwise use the software), nor prevent the downloading of existing patches on their public servers.

OTOH, they should have the right to prohibit transfers of support that goes beyond downloading any patches.

The downside to this as it relates to Stardock and GalCiv is that the original holder has to transfer all of his registration info to the new buyer for them to even download the stand alone patches unless someone else can supply them for them.

Frogboy, in retrospect, you are correct. But This game is only 4 weeks old, no matter if it had 1 or 2 owners. Don't you think it still deserves the full update treatment? Like i said, the game is paid for, and the actual owner should not be in the equation. The game itself was bought, Stardock has the money, so for the full year it (it being the game with serial number) should be treated like everyone else.

If you got the stand alone patches, you got the full update treatment. Can we lay this to rest already? I doubt anyone will give you a step down, so you might as well take it yourself...

I think it's funny that so many people scoff at the EULA's thinking their worthless. They say this to get the company to do something they want, but you KNOW, in the end, they wouldn't take the company to court over it.

Lokiju, if you hadn't been able to get the guys info so you can use Stardock Central to get beta updates, would you have sued Stardock claiming some right to that support for the game you traded? You should have had an easy case, as you believe the EULA to be worthless right?

I was involved in a similar discussion over the Magic Online game. There was some content in that EULA that had players up in arms, but they swore they would buy the game anyway and ignore the EULA, it would never hold up in court. Having considerable experience in the court system, you people who can predict what a judge or jury is going to do must have some special powers. Judges are less fickle, but they can be. Juries however run the fickle gamut.

Magic Online's problem was over the concept of "virtual property". You bought virtual playing cards, which WOTC maintained possession of and could take back from you for a myriad of reasons. I would not buy that game for that very reason. You can say the EULA wouldn't hold up, but litigation is expensive and I won't take a chance of signing over a right like that on the hunch it will withstand the legal system. Buying magic cards can be very expensive, particularly if you don't even actually or realistically "own" them.

~SDC~

Code Monkey,

If I'm not mistaken, violating a EULA would be a civil issue, not a criminal matter. The police would not get involved at all. As it happens, I live in VA too. We do not involve ourselves in civil issues, aside from handling Mental Detention Orders, and testifing is certain civil cases which involved police action (such as accidents).

Stardock wouldn't contact the police, they would have to take out a Civil Warrant (or suit), most of which are served by sheriffs and constables, but that ends their involvement.

If I am mistaken, I would certainly appreciate some reference to refer to which puts EULA's enforceable as criminal matters.

~SDC~

Code Monkey,

I found some clarification.

I went to the Copyright homepage (yes, there is one) and found the following in a FAQ.

www.copyright.gov

Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.

So, in cases for profit, it can be criminal (if the US Attorney deems it worth handling), but would only be enforceable on the Federal level. Knowing what I know of Federal law enforcement agencies, it would have to be a MAJOR deal before they get involved in criminal proceedings. In most cases, such as we seem to be discussing here, it would be a civil matter, and therefore up to Stardock and/or their lawyers to pursue in civil court.

We were both "sort of" right.

~SDC~

Vernmeister, I'm sure you're correct in that it would be a civil charge; still, unlike in most states where you could actually challenge the legality of the EULA as your defense, here, it is the (civil) law.

If Stardock/Strategy First made the complaint, your only defense would be to show you didn't break the letter of the EULA or find a way to challenge the constitutionality (state or federal) of the EULA. Otherwise, you're SOL.

This grants a lot of power carte blanche to software companies.

The issue isn't whether someone who trades the gmae with someone else "deserves" equal treatment.

The issue is how much effort (and hence money) Stardock should spend developing code so that people can easily do something that our publisher (and most publishers) explicitly prohibit in their license agreements?

You might be able to fix things up with the edit account info. I'm not sure. But I'm not sure how anyone could possibly expect us to have somehow, seemingly by magic, know that someone with a different email address is now using it.

At the very least, at some point, someone has to change the email address that is set up with the serial number. It might be doable in SDCentral already. I'm not sure. But the thing is, Stardock Central is an additional goodie beyond the purchase.

But I'm not sure how one would come up with an automatic way of handling such a situation that wouldn't open the door to piracy on a massive scale.

BTw, the expansion pack is free too.

BTW, bear in mind, Stardock develops the game, not publishes. So you'd be sueing Strategy First, not us. LOL

Another case of "How much time should a person invest on the very small percent of people who aren't totally happy with GC, its ongoing development, and the 'download' button for stand-alone patches..."?

I'd say this threat used up all the allotted time. Next.

I could be wrong but isnt the only difference between stand alone downloads and updates the immediacy of the update? If so, take a pill. You can get everything that is being done to enhance the game by downloading of this web. You just dont get it the minute it becomes available. You wait a week or so. hardly a crime in my book. I've been waiting for 2 and half months already for ANOTHER update/patch and looks like I will wait for another two or three months. Waiting a week or so for these updates is doable.

I never stated anything about sueing...where did that come from? :notsure: Please. I'm a 31 year old school teacher, not some 14 year old teeny bopper. I have been nice and never said a mean thing in this thread. There have been a few others who chimed in about EULA's, but I simply came asking about my situation. It has been rectified. Thank you for your time.

Lokiju,

I didn't accuse you of being mean, I was merely commenting on several comments YOU made about the worthlessness of EULA's. Personally, I'm glad it worked out for you. I just asked the question about suing based on your view that EULA's hold no water, and if you hadn't worked it out some other way.

~SDC~

Not sure if this has been said as I did not read every post.

First, where you can play GalCiv without the CD I can understand why they do not want to allow people to have easy access. The guy you got it from in reality can keep playing it and getting updates as long as he never has to reformat his system (or so I think). That would mean that you and he can play from the same copy. Not good.

Why not write back to the guy you got it from and ask him to update his account with your email address? This would (I think) in effect disallow him from getting any more updates while at the same time allowing you to get them.

This at least might be a workable solution, worth a try.

I think this might be OK with all parties involved, but I am not really sure.

Stardock has the final say that is for sure.

Toothy

LOL, just a misunderstanding then. I am very against the justice system as it stands. People taking from others (over hot coffee and getting fat) is no way to run a society. Everyone has been very helpful here. Next time I promise to buy the game and not get it in a trade. LOL

Toothy, thanks for helping. You did miss the part where it has been taken care of. I got his info, and changed the account to me. He can theroetically still play the game, but without the updates as it is under my password now. Like I said, everyone at GoneGold are against piracy, and defend gaming and developers to no end. The person I traded from deleted the game, as we all agree to before our trades.

And as a side note...come on, how can you tell someone they can't sell or trade a game when they are done with it? This would never work in our society, EULA or no EULA.

"If you now have the account info and it's in your name, then you should be entitled to updates for a year from when the game was first bought."

That's just for drengin.net. We all get galciv updates for however long they are made.

On a brighter note, I beat my first game yesterday! Man, that tech tree is extensive as all hell! :notsure:

lokiju - just some tongue in cheek humor about what someone else said about EULA. It wasn't directed at you. We're all pretty lighted hearted around here in general.

Frogboy, I guess I was a bit touchy given the topic.

Lokiju,

Sorry to hear you're having troubles. For what it's worth though, the incremental improvements haven't been all *that* frequent, and there have been what... 3 conventional, downloadable patches since the game was released, 1 1/2-2 months ago? You should be just fine with the conventional ones. Not to mention you might avoid some of the many problems some people have had trying to use Stardock.

I prefer the standalones, actually, because they represent the results of having already been tested in the wild first...

Code Monkey once again makes the most valid point on this matter. There is no way to transfer ownership of a license and that is what this person is demanding and will obviously not get. It is not a question of shafting someone, it is the fact of the horrible difficulty in trying to track anyone who may have bought a game from another person. I have bought used games at EB and Gamespot. I only had one other occasion where I could not validate the program. They would not allow me to get any updates, the game sucked anyways I later found out. No love loss with that one. I would not buy anything off from e-bay myself. Too many rip-off artists for my taste. Good luck! Glad I bought it at a retail store myself.

~SDC~

Desert Fox..."this person" is me, Mike, how you doing? I didn't demand anything. Relax, ok? Does anyone read the story before they post? This whole situation was rectified on page 1, and people are still ranting about my "demands" and calls for the developers' heads. Sheesh. I was upset, we discussed, it's cleared up. Trading games is something that has been done at many gaming sites, and is not illegal. I don't make copies of games before I trade, and am strictly against piracy. If I buy a game and don't like it, and an aquaintance has the same happen to him/her...we swap games. No harm, no foul. 2 happy fans, something that is the heart of gaming. In stead of 2 games going in the trash, 2 people are happy, and the developers still got paid. As far as the updates here at Stardock, I took the view that the game was paid for, 3-4 weeks old, and still deserved the regular patches, regardless of who has the game right now. Stardock got the $40, and the game should be covered for a year. People will disagree because the EULA states one license, and then the gamne is dead to them. This seems anti-game-fun. The industry needs to take a step back and remember what it's all about.

Um, this game rules, and I will purchase Stardock's next game. Promise.