IL2 and Sound Modding

[jasonbirder]

Are you for real? Seriously man, you seem to produce the most amazing amount of non-sensicle drivel in order to attempt to validate a blatant HACK! The original analogy was reasonable, except that I don't think the keys were left in the car. I think some lowlife stole them or just plain broke in. You DO NOT OWN THE CODE! You PURCHASED A LICENCE AND A LOCKED CODE THAT YOU AGREED TO UPON LOADING! If you lease or rent a car, you may over time pay more than the worth of that car. This does not mean that the car is yours to keep. In my own honest personal opinion, you now strike me as being an absolute idiot that randomly rants and raves about only semi related incidents by a somebody/nobody that made a statement somewhere else.

I think the anology would be a little closer if you described it like this...You got to a car Showroom..Pay full price for a car you believe you are buying...the salesman never mentions to you that you are leasing the car, you drive the car home...on reaching for the service manual you notice a small slip of paper that tells you you are only leasing the car...after you have parted with your money...
Do you think you would have a case in court to show you'd be conned...damn straight you would!
Thats why so called "shrink wrap agreements" have been shown not to be enforcable...you don't get the agreement until after you have purchased the product.
You buy the software in good faith...only after parting with the money are you told its not actually yours to do with as you please...
They are called "coercive contracts" as they rely on an asymmetry of information...the vendor holds all the cards and you the purchaser are at a disadvantage.

Answer these questions honestly if you can:

1. Was the game purchased with a locked code?

2. Was the code HACKED (by whoever and whenever doesn't matter at this stage)?

3. Was there any official "nod" for this code to be hacked?

4. Do you support the code hackers / mods / whatever you choose to call them?

5. Would you still be so blaze` and proud to stand up for them in a court of law?

There is no such thing as "locked" code, there is software...and there is software...1C wrote part of the game files in a particular proprietry format..what that format is has absolutely no legal bearing on anything...it could have been written in swahilli and it wouldn't matter...

When you say "Hacked" you actually mean...modified by legitimate purchasers of the game to improve their own gameplay experience...

Why would there need to be an "official" nod? Every single Flight Simulator, no wait...let me not narrow it down every single flight, combat, naval, racing etc etc simulator has been modified by its community...

Yes I support the efforts of legitimate users who are trying to improve the gameplay experience for people...in exactly the same way as I applaud the hard work of skinners...campaign writers, utility developers etc etc...whats the difference?

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!

[csThor]

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


Evgeny - do all of us a favor and lock this darn thread.

[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

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.

[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!