156

No, Ubisoft's EULA clause ordering you to destroy your games isn't new, nor is it unique (www.thegamer.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And they wonder why people pirate games.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

In the case they should have made it clearer in the terms, there are many companies that try to enforce them even if they seem unenforceable like Disney in the death case.

There is no excuse to put terms like this, Disney proved that even if they look unenforceable they might try to enforce them.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

Yes, that's the point. You put them in there, try to enforce them, see if that plays out or not. Ultimately you're punting the determination of how far they can apply to the courts.

Which ends up being why a lot of these never get enforced. In some cases the companies would rather let you quietly break their terms than roll the dice and find out that they don't have the protections they tried to give themselves.

Ultimately the limits of EULAs are set in legislation. What really matters is consumer protections. And in issues like these and copyright more generally we are in a bit of a no man's land where the regulations are woefully out of date, not keeping pace with the new online-driven economy of digital goods and companies are mostly not trying to enforce a bunch of their EULAs anyway.

We end up in a system where a significant chunk of our online economy is decided by Google and social media companies by default.