The biggest issue with the new Character Builder:

[Dice4Hire]

Just curious, but what makes you think that the Terms of Use have any legal standing?

Just curious, but why do you think you can just use things like the CB as you see fit?

I really do not get why some people think they can just take things they want, and that a minor payment of any amount of money entitles them to taking whatever they like. Paying one day to enter an amusement park does not give the customer the equivalent of a yearly pass. Or a lifetime one.

The Terms of Use are something that you supposedly read and definitely agreed to BEFORE you paid the money. The fact (or so you say) that there is no legal standing is beside the point. You agreed to the terms BEFORE you paid the money. So maybe WOTC cannot sue you. That does not make it right.

 

[Oldtimer]

Just curious, but why do you think you can just use things like the CB as you see fit?

Because I bought it. I think we are going in circles here.

Look, companies are not legislators. They can write their various EULAs and stuff, but Contract Law and Consumer Rights still trumph those. Companies would like you to believe in their smoke and mirrors tricks, but you really shouldn't.

 

[evilref]

Because I bought it. I think we are going in circles here.

Look, companies are not legislators. They can write their various EULAs and stuff, but Contract Law and Consumer Rights still trumph those. Companies would like you to believe in their smoke and mirrors tricks, but you really shouldn't.

You didn't buy it, you subscribed to the service, there's a significant legal difference.

To make it clear, again, the legal matter is with regard to a file which contains copyrighted material and whether or not a piece of software which modifies the classic CB would fall under the DMCA. The DMCA was particularly far-reaching in its scope and, as such, there are 'things' which used to be fine which are now potentially unlawful.

There is no EULA, there is a terms of use agreement, this has a different legal standing. As for contract law coming ahead of a terms of use, terms of use are a form of contract. How binding depends on a court, but the US Government just succesfully prosecuted a company for fraud because of violating a website's terms of use (yes it was more complicated than that, but that aspect was the significant chilling effect to come out of the trial).

This is not 'a text editor' as someone mentioned above, there's a piece of software which is run to enable you to then use text editors to modify the CB, you then have to use that software to run the CB rather than the normal .exe; it's the use of that software that may be a DMCA violation. Likewise the distributed file contains extensive text from Dark Sun and Essentials, this is almost certainly a copyright violation (there could be a fair use argument but I don't believe it would wash given the nature of the file, its intended use and the copied text).

 

[Ryujin]

Fortunately, most software licenses don't mean a thing. Corporations are not legislative bodies. Are you or anyone else seriously going to sit here and argue that popping open a text editor and poking around in the guts of a data file on your own computer is 'illegal activity'?

Actually a software license is a contract. While we may not be talking about an actual legal infraction, we are talking about a breach of contract.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Actually a software license is a contract. While we may not be talking about an actual legal infraction, we are talking about a breach of contract.

Look, I have created a program. It's called AutoThreadBaiter2.0. It doesn't really do anything useful, but I've written a EULA which says that I get to eat any pets you may have and that running the program signifies acceptance.

If you use the program and don't let me eat your pets and I take you to court because "we have a contract that states I'm allowed to eat your pets," will I win?

This is an extreme example, but it points out the absurdity of this line of thinking. Corporations can put any kind of nonsense they want in their EULA, but it's not binding and is unlikely to stand up in a court of law. If WotC wants to take me or a bunch of SomethingAwful forumers to court and try their luck, that's their business rather than yours.

In the meantime, this thread has gotten WAY off track. So: New Character Builder not as good as Old Character Builder. RAWR.

 

[Ryujin]

Look, I have created a program. It's called AutoThreadBaiter2.0. It doesn't really do anything useful, but I've written a EULA which says that I get to eat any pets you may have and that running the program signifies acceptance.

If you use the program and don't let me eat your pets and I take you to court because "we have a contract that states I'm allowed to eat your pets," will I win?

This is an extreme example, but it points out the absurdity of this line of thinking. Corporations can put any kind of nonsense they want in their EULA, but it's not binding and is unlikely to stand up in a court of law. If WotC wants to take me or a bunch of SomethingAwful forumers to court and try their luck, that's their business rather than yours.

In the meantime, this thread has gotten WAY off track. So: New Character Builder not as good as Old Character Builder. RAWR.

The very absurdity of that "EULA" invalidates the argument. A contract must be reasonable, to be enforceable. A contract, like the one that I have described, is enforceable.

 

[IronWolf]

Actually a software license is a contract. While we may not be talking about an actual legal infraction, we are talking about a breach of contract.

There is a large amount of debate about the enforceability of a EULA. It isn't clear cut as the courts have ruled on specific EULAs and not EULAs as a whole. So this subject is not not likely one that we are going to get agreement on here as even as far as the legal system is concerned there is debate about it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That should settle that.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The question of legality is for lawyers. The question of breach of contract is also for lawyers. Anyone who takes a discussion among poorly-identified duffers on a message board as good legal advice... shouldn't.

If you aren't a lawyer, please stop telling folks what is, or is not, okay by contract or law. You aren't an expert, and aren't in a position to pass judgments good for anyone other than yourself.

Thanks for your attention.

 

[Danzauker]

EULA: by continuing you accept to consirer the following post by Danzauker (from here on called "the poster") as "tongue in cheek satire" and not "mod disagreeing" and thus consider the poster not liable of banning.




Lo, when, WHEN will we see the day when a similar mod post will be written where "lawyer" is changed to "developer"!!!!