Law question

[sinople]

Hello,

Just to introduce the problem I'm studiyng law in France and have already studied some parts of the common law system and of the european one.
So what I see here is that all the people who paid S2TW were not allowed to use some parts of this and they must pay for the other part. The problems I think must be underligned :

- The additionnal part is actually in the computer of the person who bought S2TW
- In term of possession the owning prevail (that means if I have an object for at least one year, its mine). In France and in many civil law system it is ruled that way, but I don't know how it is in England or USA.
- I don't think selling an object and forbid the buyer to use it completely is legal

Sorry for my poor law english, and I should add that even in french I'm not sure of the fact it is illegal, I'm just starting a debate with people skilled in these kind a questions : is this possibly illegal ?

[zzzms]

You may have a point, but, the EULA that we all agree to, will probably negate any law-breaking...I say probably because I, like most others, haven't read it!

Saying that, I hope you do find some kind of illegal behaviour and free us all from paying for that which we already have but can't access.

[sinople]

The Eula is just a additionnel part of the contract/convention, so that means it can't say something against the law. About limiting responsability in a convention Europe has already used its power to forbid some of them. I think it may work here.

But because I totally don't know that part of the law (I'm studying public law, not private), I just have some global skills but no specific one and my english is really bad in that case, so I hope someone here is a jurist correctly skilled

[Thiril]

Belgian Law student here, (so almost the same as my French collegue since our law is based on the Code Civil Napoleon created)
So you say the Ikko - ikki dlc would be illegal? since the faction was allready in the game?

As far as I can tell, internet law and all it's offspring are still very young, and a lot of laws should still be formed, and since law is one of the slowest things on this planet, it might still take a while.
I think CA isn't doing anything illegal here atm, yes the faction was in there, but they implemented new units aswell, new content so they could sell that. Like for instance a bread with extra grain or something.
I personally think it's a grey zone, and either way it should have some regulations.
If someone would go to court on this matter I doubt there will be any succes, since it would be you vs all companies that use DLC then, and they have the recources for expensive lawyers...

edit: Like in the early days, hacking was still considered as lock-picking, a minor offense, so people could hack and steal millions and be charged for 100€,$,£ if you like

[ChristianB]

I may understand the frustration of this DLC -- it's thin, perhaps it should have been included from the beginning, perhaps they should focus on patches, and truthfully they should be making real DLCs such as new campaigns and full expansions. But, it's not illegal. It may be simply "wrong", but illegal, no.


SEGA/CA made no claims Ikko-Ikki was actually included on the disk. They didn't sell the files to you, they sold you the rest of the game, and you got the other files without paying a single $ for them, they were free. You pay for unlocking these. Now, if the back of the cover said something along the lines of "Control clans such as Takeda, Tokugawa, Oda and Ikko-Ikki and battle for the Shogunate!", charging me in order to unlock one of these later would be illegal, because they advertised I could actually play all these. SEGA/CA did not do so.

This is common. You pay for something, and you get something else with it that doesn't work, but you get it for free and you may pay an additional fee later in order to use it.

Several free anti-virus programs, for example, are actually full versions with lines of codes that prevent you from using all the features. When you pay for a license, the license code will remove these lines of code. In fact, you pay for something and you end up with less! Charging you for this license code is not illegal. You may also download a crack, unlocking all features for free. Maybe illegal, it depends on where you live.

Cars can be bought with XX kW of power, but you can upgrade the car to XXX kW by connecting it to a computer, because there's a chip in your engine that decreases the output! It's outrageous, but it will make the car cheaper to buy if your country has stupid laws that say powerful cars should cost more. You may later have to pay a fee to the government (depending on country). Not reporting the increased kW and paying this fee is illegal (again, depending on country).

My cell phone included two games that were actually just demos that I after six-or-so days would have to pay for in order to keep playing. I didn't pay for these, I got them for free, with the phone and OS I paid for. The games were crap so I didn't pay for more playing time. Not illegal, not at all.

Several computer games have some sort of unlockable content included with the game that you will have to pay for in order to use (Over-Sized Dual Flaming Elven Daggers of Slow Painful Death). Charging you? Not illegal as long as they didn't claim you would get this for free. Modifying the game yourself in order to unlock the content? Probably not illegal, but you may risk problems with the game and loss of online access etc.


Disclaimer: I'm a salmon farmer. Not a lawyer, not a judge, not even a law school dropout. I feed salmons.

[Hunter168]

The problems are...

1. You don't buy the program, you buy a licence that allow you to use that program. So, you never own the programm or any right on it.
2. There is no promise on the packaging that you can play "all clans" or that the Ikko-Ikki are a playable faction.
It's the same if you buy a mobile phone. You have a slot to fit in a sd-card, but only because there is that slot you have no right to claim a sd-card from the producer. You have only that right if the packaging say that a sd-card is included.
3. The programm has all features that are promised by the packaging or by official feature lists. They could make a crippled game with only one playable faction that has 3 different units and 5 regions on the campaign map. Besides that noone would buy such a game, as long as they don't promise you more than what is included it is totally legal.

I'm from germany, but I think the laws in our countries are not much different in that way.

[sinople]

Just to make a comparison it would be as if you pay your car but you can't use the climatisor that is located inside because the car mark hasn't sell it to you and hasn't tell you that it wasn't included. You will agree that in this case you can use the climatisor, the opposite would be a non sense. I think it's the same for the DLC here (moreover the DLC term is incorrect because you are not downloading any of them because they are already in your computer !). It would have been different if the DLC wasn't in the game.

So because S2TW is a property and not a person the principle of owning = possessing is working. The question now is to know if the owning is the program or the license. Does someone knows any article/precedent about videogames ?

I'm from germany, but I think the laws in our countries are not much different in that way.

Yes, thanks to Europe !

[Elyrioth]

You do not, nor do you ever own a piece of S/W. You own a licence to use a piece of S/W in the manner specified by the owner (CA/Sega) in the EULA.
You do not own Shogun 2. You own a license to use the game.

I used to do S/W support for Europe, and while people had similar arguements for locked out content dependant on the licence they purchased, they told me we would end up in court blah blah blah we never actually did. Never would.

[Thiril]

But classifying this as a license that everyones owns and not the actual game itself is rather strange

I mean, if it's a license it can be withdrawn if the giver of the license sees it fit. But that won't happen since people bought it and expect to be owners. So having an eternal license on it then makes it property and gives you ownership.

You can even give away the game, for example in a last will, you can give your entire game collection to your children so they can use it. And they never bought this license you refer to.

[Elyrioth]

One could also argue the same for a lease that lasts longer that your life. While you can leave the use of a lets say 100 year lease on a property that does not make you the owner of the property. While they may not retract the use but can and do withdraw support making functionality of the s/w in the distant future unlikely.

Like i said i have heard this case before too many times. But it means nothing and until a court says otherwise it is still the case that you own a license to use a piece of s/w in a manner specified by the owner. And the simple facts are there is a reason why there is no case law in s/w products to support it.

[Thiril]

I'm pretty sure continential law forbids life lasting lasting contracts.
And lease is not yet implemented in civil law as far as I know, it's legal but it still needs to follow the general civil law.
So I highly doubt a 100 year lease would be legal.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Simple solution - Don't release "patches" that forcibly insert new content then expect a payment. I see no qualms about people pirating the DLC (I'm not saying that I have) until the current system of installation is replaced.

[sinople]

Yep, I'm on the same way as Thiril in France contracts can't go more than 50 years on average (I'm not sure but the average for long contracts is more about 20/30 thant 50 years), and even this just concern administrativ conventions or specific private contracts and not sellings. And because we are speaking about sellings the law system concerning the game is the one of the buyer. Moreover the question isn't that SEGA said it is a licence but what does the law/precedent says about licence and videogames/immaterial goods.

I would also add that if it is a license then the convention of use can't last for more than the copyright duration, so not a whole life for sure.

[Dubh the dark]

I think the issue is that a lot of these theories haven't been tested in courtrooms yet.

I guess over the years to come, various cases relating to games/DLC/copyright etc. will clear this up.

[Thiril]

I think the issue is that a lot of these theories haven't been tested in courtrooms yet.

I guess over the years to come, various cases relating to games/DLC/copyright etc. will clear this up.

agreed, Like I've mentioned before, these kind of things are very young and still need their place in the legal system. I have no doubt that someday some influental lawyers or people of the gaming industry will take these matters to the court.

(heck why not me when I finish law school and establish a career )

[Dubh the dark]

agreed, Like I've mentioned before, these kind of things are very young and still need their place in the legal system. I have no doubt that someday some influental lawyers or people of the gaming industry will take these matters to the court.

(heck why not me when I finish law school and establish a career )

Well it's bound to happen, that and internet law as-well, it's an area too long ignored and ready for some eager young lawyers to get to work on

[sinople]

These things are dealing with more and more money so I think it won't be so long to wait for one precedent, although with justice time is different to other areas

[Fireright]

Simple solution - Don't release "patches" that forcibly insert new content then expect a payment. I see no qualms about people pirating the DLC (I'm not saying that I have) until the current system of installation is replaced.

I regard the current practice of sliding in DLC under the guise of 'patches' and wasting everyones time, bandwidth and hard drive space as shoddy and somewhat dubious. Why should everyone get subjected to such nonsense when say only 20% of people actually want and purchase the stuff??.

All DLC should be truly optional in that anyone wishing to purchase it should visit the Sega Store or Steam Store and download the stuff onto their hard drive at their time, bandwidth and expense.

[Thiril]

the main problem is ofcourse that internet spans over the world and law doesn't

Sure Western Europe has somewhat the same law (all based on the C.C.) and Anglo-Sakson law is very similar aswell. But that's not the world.
All people have free DLC, except those in the republic of Somewherestan, or to be realistic, why not Russia or Japan, both great players in world economy and they have a lot of gamers aswell. That would cause some serious problems...
I fear we can only have universal internet law if we have universal law in general, and yes we have the human rights and it is good that war criminals can face trial in Den Haag, but you know what I mean.

I'd love to be part of this and see those cases on tv or even real life. But I fear it'll be something for our grand children, since:
1 a law system changes or adapts very slow (understatement)
2 People are still to busy with bashing each others heads in rather then forming decent law where war isn't neccasary (yes I'm looking at you Americans and Religious fundamentalists)
3 and people over the world are still to different to share the same opinions, a chinese person will look different at law then a Brazilian..

So for now, we'll have to undergo the DLC's and see what the future brings us, and if, by any chance, there is a possibility for revolution in internet law I'm sure it'll come with great support.

[Armchair Revolutionary]

I don't think CA would make a law blunder, but I'm a firm believer in buying the program files with the program. So if Ikko-Ikki really is just an unlock, then CA are just plain old scammers, and shouldn't be surprised to see people cracking their DLC/ modding units similar to DLC.