IL2 and Sound Modding

[BrassEm]

Originally Posted by jasonbirder

In court! Don't make me laugh..not only has nothing illegal been done, but what software publisher would want to be seen taking their customers to court for modifying their software for their own personnel use? Thats just a joke!

From memory it is called reverse engineering and product modification. With most software the publisher authorises the customer to use the programme in a manner prescribed by the publisher. Anything outside that is beyond the terms of conditions, and the publisher has the right to enforce that. Read any EULA. You click okay that you agree to the terms BEFORE you install the programme. End of story... <

That is not to say the 1C legal team, AND more likely UBI, are building a case for prosecution. Not heard any comments from them on the mods?

("Hey, I found your stolen car, I saw the lights busted and mirrors missing so I fixed them for you, they work better than the old ones, hope that's okay?")

[jasonbirder]

Yes but while its never been tested in an identical situation (after all, what Software publisher would attempt to take their legitimate customers to court for non-commercial personal modification of their software?) in instances where it has been tested...the EULA has been found to be non-enforcable for the reasons I have stated above.

[jasonbirder]

The justification attempts get lamer and much more absurd with each passing day

Why lame? Is that just an offhand remark that you hope will dismiss my argument...or do you actually have references and precedents to abck that up.
Can you point to relevent examples where breaches of post purchase EULAs have been shown to be legally enforcable?
Because I can certainly point to the opposite...
If you can't then i'll expect you to retract the remark.

[BrassEm]

Originally Posted by jasonbirder

Yes but while its never been tested in an identical situation (after all, what Software publisher would attempt to take their legitimate customers to court for non-commercial personal modification of their software?) in instances where it has been tested...the EULA has been found to be non-enforcable for the reasons I have stated above.

There is no doubt that in a CIVIL Court of Law, this matter is enforceable if they wish too.

The bottom line, as you say, is that the EULA has been breached by using the mods. And whether UBI is going to enforce it. And whether the jurisdiction will have an effect on the reach of the enforcement.

[jasonbirder]

But there is plenty of doubt that the EULA is enforcable in a civil court of law

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir. 1991) was case in which the legality and history of computer EULAs was explored. The court noted, "When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine" thus the intent of EULAs after 1990 were to preempt federal statutes using contract law and that they serve no purpose besides attempts to preempt consumer rights in other statutes.

In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a EULA disclaimer waiving all express and implied warranties, printed on the outside of the box, was not binding

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y.2001), was a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decision involving whether software license agreements are binding. It held that license agreements are akin to contractual agreements, thus to be binding there must be mutual consent.

The court ruled that the license agreement for the Smart Download software was not binding on the plaintiffs and thus denied to compel arbitration for plaintiff's breach of the license agreement.

The court ruled that the software license agreement was not binding because a binding contract means that both parties know of the terms and agree to them.

[LW_lcarp]

Il2 End User Lisence agreement. Are you sure you want to go after just those that are modding the game? As per the EULA, anyone who has made a mission, pianted a skin, done a movie, or even played online in something other then a UBI game room is breaking the terms of the EULA. So I guess everyone that bought any of the IL2 series is one way or another breaking the law and UBI will be coming for us all. EULA from FB below

The User recognises that all of the rights associated with the Multimedia Product and its components (in particular the titles, computer codes, themes, characters, character names, plots, stories, dialogues, places, concepts, images, photographs, animation, videos, music and text contained in the Multimedia Product), as well as the rights relating to the trademark, royalties and copyrights, are the property of Ubi Soft and are protected by French regulations or other Laws, Treaties and international agreements concerning intellectual property.

It is not permitted:
- To make copies of the Multimedia Product,
- To operate the Multimedia Product commercially,
- To use it contrary to morality or the laws in force,
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To transmit the Multimedia Product via a telephone network or any other electronic means, except during multi-player games on authorised networks,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.

[ElAurens]

So here we are, right back at the beginning.

While the pseudo lawyers in this forum blather away, I'll just say that personally I know right from wrong, and no legal mumbo jumbo, no matter how you twist it, can replace my moral stand on this issue.

[jasonbirder]

Exactly right back to where we started...
Onliners claiming its illegal or immoral or irresponsible for offliners to use the sound mod...
Where what they really mean is they can't trust the other onliners they choose to play with to behave responsibly.
If its shown not to be illegal...they'll claim its immoral...
If the claim that its immoral is shown as laughable they'll claim its irresponsible...
If the claim its irresponsibles is shown to be hot air they'll claim its selfish for offliners to enjoy themselves at the expense of onliners...and so the argument goes around and around in circles...
Every single thing the Online crowd says against the Sound Mod can be shown to be meaningless and false...
The only thing that stands up is that it has made it easier to cheat in anonomyous Online servers...
But surely thats something for the Online community to take responsibility for...
I for one am fed up of being scapegoated for the inadequacies of a small minority of juvenile online players...
Put your own house in order first!

[csThor]

jb - Resorting to the tactics you criticize (namecalling and insults) shows how little substance your "defense" really has. Just to refute your ridiculous claim on who disapproves of the hacks: I'm 27 (about to turn 28 next week) and play 90% of my flying time offline. I disapprove of hacks and modding in general because the now 8 years of flight sim experience have shown me that "the community" cannot be trusted to deliver historical and technical realism without an independent entity checking the work - precisely what was done for Il-2. I regard it as grave error to allow modding for SoW but woild have prefered a more fleshed-out and more thought-through system of managing 3rd Party development, a process which should (must!) include the basic component of historical relevance for any inclusion. Free choice, as Il-2 development has shown, leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to how individual projects fit into the game's environment.

Am I a cynic? Perhaps (or most probably) but all I have to do to get some hard evidence on why "the community" is not able to be civil and police itself is the collection of message boards with the UbiZoo at the top. You'll find loads of people thinking of themselves as god's gift to the flight simmers while they fail to realize their own stupidy and the blinders they wear. I'd rather give up flight simming at all than give these people the slightest chance of influencing development - regardless if it's FM, DM, armament or even the most basic decision on which planes/objects/ships get made.

[strewth]

Originally Posted by csThor

jb - Resorting to the tactics you criticize (namecalling and insults) shows how little substance your "defense" really has. Just to refute your ridiculous claim on who disapproves of the hacks: I'm 27 (about to turn 28 next week) and play 90% of my flying time offline. I disapprove of hacks and modding in general because the now 8 years of flight sim experience have shown me that "the community" cannot be trusted to deliver historical and technical realism without an independent entity checking the work - precisely what was done for Il-2. I regard it as grave error to allow modding for SoW but woild have prefered a more fleshed-out and more thought-through system of managing 3rd Party development, a process which should (must!) include the basic component of historical relevance for any inclusion. Free choice, as Il-2 development has shown, leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to how individual projects fit into the game's environment.

Am I a cynic? Perhaps (or most probably) but all I have to do to get some hard evidence on why "the community" is not able to be civil and police itself is the collection of message boards with the UbiZoo at the top. You'll find loads of people thinking of themselves as god's gift to the flight simmers while they fail to realize their own stupidy and the blinders they wear. I'd rather give up flight simming at all than give these people the slightest chance of influencing development - regardless if it's FM, DM, armament or even the most basic decision on which planes/objects/ships get made.

Pretty much it.

And for the record (again). I appreciate the talent of the community and do not have an anti-offline view as many want people to believe. I fly online and offline regularly and enjoy both sides of it. I DO NOT regard all offliners to be HACKS and I don't regard all modders to be HACKS. The Hacks IMO are people that broke into a piece of software that was not meant to be messed with. As for the skins issue. I am of the belief there was never any attempt to lock them out and if you don't agree with the software terms, you can always return the game. I really hope that the game can continue to improve.