What we see here is that EA are taking ownership of your generated content such that they have the right to use it in various ways. Since the user generated content is on EA services, they're going to be doing this anyway, and when you extend that to content creation in game (say making a Spore creature or something) EA by the very necessity of the game are going to have to handle and distribute it in some way. All the legalese here seems to be setting up a framework to prevent ridiculous litigation cases, not "Let's steal ideas" as the OP seems to put forward. The agreement should also be read as a whole, which is something I haven't actually done, and plus I doubt that they can take away legal rights with a EULA.
I'd imagine these are the same sort of terms that Blizzard used with WoW modding, that means when a modder adds something really useful to the UI, they can take that idea and develop their own version for the base UI without having to worry about being sued by the modder.
[QUOTE=soldant;118239]Really this seems more like saying that they'll edit your profile if they feel the need to, say because you've got a vulgar signature or something like that. Which pretty much any major company will do. You can dig out scary clauses from pretty much any EULA (I've dug out a very similar clause for the Steam Workshop which suggests that anything you make is also owned by Valve, but it doesn't stop people using it) but they're often not as serious as people postulate.
Yes, that is the **spirit** of what they are saying here. Doubtless the "usual" intent is simply to allow them to monitor user profiles and forum responses for vulgar content or other blatant EULA violations and remove those posts.
Unfortunately, that is not the **real limit** of the power this EULA affords them. That real power, because of this wording, allows them to buy/sell your information, alter it and use it in ANY way they see fit, whether for profit or otherwise. The intent is reasonable, but the rules allow for things that go far beyond the intent.
Last edited by squirrel; 22-04-2012 at 01:48 AM.
The guy who gets 1 cent for every thousand words of English spoken is going to make a killing.Originally Posted by Squirrel
I saw something recently where someone had counted the words in the EULA and other licenses of various services, I believe both Google's and Apple's came out longer than the complete works of Shakespear.
However you can basically assume any license will state:
a) All software remains property of the company.
b) Anything you do with the software belongs to the company.
c) You can't make money off it.
d) You can't use it to annoy anyone.
e) Your soul/internal organs/pet platypus now belongs to the company.
Anything else is just them trying to put everything in a form that avoids legal loopholes.
I dont see the problem here. Or atleast, I dont see the problem here already existant everywhere.
Last edited by squirrel; 21-04-2012 at 02:44 PM.
My main problem is the failure to differentiate between user generated content, and user personal data. The information on your profile - and the words in your forum posts - are not content. They are personal information. EA does not own your personal information no matter where you post it. Nor does anyone else. To claim otherwise is a violation of personal, inalienable rights.
Now, if they want to reserve just the rights to block you or your information from sites they own, or pull vulgar posts, fine. If they want to reserve the right to refuse you service, fine (so long as its not a refusal to let you play games you paid for at least offline.) If they want to restrict the forums you can use, fine.
But to claim a right to take a user's profile information, and "adapt" it for future use...yeah, no. They need to walk that back a few steps into a more reasonable, more restricted, less overblown and less presumptuous form. Block or remove whatever you want, EA, its your forum, I respect that just as I respect the same here at RPS or on Steam.
But claiming to own, and be able to adapt, my personal info for your use...I never wanted a profile with you. Never asked to have one. You made me have one, to play your game. Now you want to own the data you required me to post?
Deal breaker. Period. I love gaming, but not as much as a I value privacy.
Your forum posts are definitely content, not personal information. As for personal information in the profile, there will be legal restrictions on what they can do with it that aren't mentioned in the EULA, so you probably don't have too much to worry about there.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
Fair point, Nathan. And another fair point: This seems to be an uncomfortably popular trend amongst media companies. Not just EA. Its disturbing and unfair and rightly unpopular.
But its not just EA.
The problem with UGC is that you need to acquire the rights to distribute the UGC from the user, and it's probably safe to acquire the rights to use the UGC commercially, in case you're developing a sequel and the UGC from the previous game is being used in the sequel.
How about this: all UGC inside a game is released under the GPL (or, say, an MIT/BSD license). That way, *everyone* benefits from everyone's work, and game developers can freely use the UGC inside their games.
There are a lot of good points brought up here.
I understand EA is not the only villain, but does that make it acceptable? Why should it have to come to a situation in court? Shouldn't it be handled before someone is victim of their intellectual work being snatched. Companies protect their own, then turn around and say the consumer doesn't have the same right?
If it comes down to protecting profit, preventing someone else from making gains off their work, how is it that I can go to any number of sites and buy a hack? That's profit being gained from their work. So, just as with DRM, the legal consumer again gets the shaft, but now with the possibility of the company to profit from "legal" intellectual theft.
Search Google, looks for EA shuts down hack site. Find anything?