I don't think it's a bad thing, either. People who buy proprietary software know what the deal is, and anyone who didn't know what the deal was knows now. It's not your game, you've just got a temporary license to it. Kind of the consumer's fault beyond anything.
That's not the deal with proprietary software. The deal is that you buy a license to software, the terms of which can be altered at any time.
It's fundamental to the model of proprietary software.
It's not theirs. It's the company's, and the company can do what they want with it.
There's no reason refunds should be offered, as the consumers got what they paid for: A license to software, with certain conditions for termination and conditions allowing the company to alter the terms of the arrangement.
It's like saying that a person should be able to get a refund on an ice cream cone that melts: The deterioration is part of the standard deal, and you know it's coming.
How is buying a copy of software which runs on my own computer different from buying a physical machine that runs on my electricity?
If this were using a company's servers, then fine. More power to them. In fact, that's a very fair way to do business. You're stepping in their own backyard and so they get to set the rules of the "house".
But when I run the software in my own machine, using my own processing power, while not using any online services that belong to them, how is it different than just buying a physical thing?
Your cone example is misleading because the melting is a natural consequence of the object existing at room temperature.
Software stays the same unless someone updates it. The copy of the software that I own (emphasis on "copy") does not naturally go through anything besides what the user does to it. If I disconnect from the internet, nobody can touch it.
Microsoft should have the full right to deny service to anyone, I don't think anyone here disputes that. But Minecraft is not a service, it is a good.
Minecraft is transparently not a good. You get a license to it, you don't own it. You don't buy the copy, you buy the license to the copy.
You go to the video store, you get a VHS tape. You don't own the media on the tape. You can use the tape.
That is the deal for proprietary software. That's what you agreed to with your purchase. You consented to the model. You agreed to the terms of the license.
There's nothing misleading about software licensing. You buy a license, that the company and you agree before you spend money on it, that the company can change at any time. There's nothing unconscionable about that. You knowingly went into the deal, and so you should have to deal with the consequences of it.
Governments need to stop babysitting people who make stupid decisions unless it's genuinely urgent; markets don't work when consumers can yell at legislators and judges enough to invalidate the mechanisms of them. It's getting a bit ridiculous.
Should have grabbed a copy of software with a better license. Better luck next time.
You should check out Andino v. Apple, an ongoing lawsuit in which the plaintiff alledges that the use of the "Buy" button is fraudulent if content is truly not bought.
I feel like you are confusing copyright law with contract law.
I can purchase Minecraft without agreeing to any EULA. It only appears after you download the launcher.
Here are the two types of unconscionability:
The basic test applied for unconscionability is “whether, in light of the
general background and the needs of a particular case, the clauses
involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the
circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract”.
Substantive unconscionability looks to the actual terms of the
agreement, while procedural unconscionability focuses on the manner
in which the contract was negotiated and the circumstances of the
parties at the time of formation. Procedural unconscionability may be
shown by either an inequality in bargaining power or unfair surprise.
This may be evidenced by terms that are unreasonably favourable to
one party, terms hidden in the contract, or where one party has
substantially lower education levels. Substantive unconscionability
may be shown by an overly harsh allocation of risks or unjustifiable
costs or a great price disparity. Where a court finds that a contract or
clause is unconscionable at the time it was made, it can refuse to
enforce the contract or limit the application of that clause to avoid an
unconscionable result.
It is not the EULA that allows me to use the software. The software can be naturally executed and used. The EULA then comes around and coerces me to agree to it if I want to get past an install screen. While the actual software is already in my posession, which is the only thing copyright law regulates. Copying and redistribution.
* It is not the EULA that allows me to use the software.*
ProCD said it was way back in ‘96. It’s still good law isn’t it?
As to unconscionability, the subject matter is relevant. In other words, there aren’t any video game cases in the unconscionability section of the typical contracts textbook.
As long as it says "buy a license to use Minecraft" and not "buy Minecraft" then yes. If it just says "buy" without telling you what you're buying them a reasonable person would assume it was a good and not a license. You want to sell me a license to some unspecified-until-after-sale access to a good, then don't obtain my money by deceiving me, tell me up front ... then yes, you win at capitalism, go you.
But that truth impacts sales as people want ownership without companies being able to rug pull. We want to be able to load up Minecraft in 30y regardless of whether Microsoft decided they're done with it.
I pointed the Andino lawsuit out as context on why this isn't a "me spewing crazy shit out of my mouth" type of thing.
Also, what "wider US society" are you talking about? Most people who use software don't ever read any terms or EULAs, let alone know the implications. And the shenanigans that they bring to the table would be laughed out of the room in any physical setting (in fact they already have been laughed out of the courtroom, see the first sale doctrine)
"Here's a machine. You're responsible for keeping it. You must use it with your own electricity and resources. But you don't own it, it's more like a lease. Oh but we advertise it as a purchase and call it that in every public display we make of it, except in our hundred-page legal terms document, which (we know) nobody reads."
> Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source. I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL, nor do I believe the other licenses have much merit other than to boost the egos of the original authors, so I might just possibly release it all as public domain.
This did not happen yet, Minecraft is still selling really well.
It was also a personal (and opinion) statement from Markus Persson (notch), who fully owned the game at the time, predating the formation of Mojang, let alone Mojang's acquisition by Microsoft.
I'm disheartened also by the fact it'll never become open source, but the statement was never legally-binding and never part of the terms that a purchase of Minecraft (in alpha, at that) entailed.
Is that even relevant when not given any timeframe? I can and did believe Notch back when he said it, I don't think he was trying to be misleading, but with no timeframe and the game being the size that it is now microsoft might as well release the source code, yes, 500 years from now.
Can we please get some sort of code escrow system going, similar to how the national libraries collect all published works in a country? Video games are culture too.
>The deal is that you buy a license to software, the terms of which can be altered at any time. //
Bollocks it is. The deal is you buy the software, it says "for sale" or "buy $app" [0]. I will never give my informed consent for unilateral pushing of changes to software I purchase.
Under UK law pushing a change without informed consent would appear to be unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act, and if features are changed is a reason for a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.
If the ice-cream melts because a company broke into your home and turns off your freezer then damn straight you should get a refund (Consumer Rights Act) and they should be criminally punished for B&E (Computer Misuse Act).
> That's not the deal with proprietary software. The deal is that you buy a license to software, the terms of which can be altered at any time.
You're acting as if Microsoft developed this game. They didn't. I bet most people posting here bought it at the time the license "made lawyers very nervous" according to Notch himself (even after he said that, he only changed the license very slightly).
They consented to the terms when installing, and the license that says they had to accept the terms at purchase, so them not knowing is entirely on them.
I'm not pro-Microsoft, but it's really on the consumers, here, if they didn't know what they got themselves into.
https://www.cbr.com/minecraft-players-outraged-mojang-monito...
I don't think it's a bad thing, either. People who buy proprietary software know what the deal is, and anyone who didn't know what the deal was knows now. It's not your game, you've just got a temporary license to it. Kind of the consumer's fault beyond anything.