License: Illegal Aspects
Other (objects, etc.) concept
Compliance with one or more aspects of the licensing terms of the software are a violation of law either by the copyright holder and/or the end user.
2
games
1platform
Please be sure that another license tag is not more applicable
If an EULA, for example, tells the user to restrict someone else's legal rights. Also the obvious, if the EULA tells the users to agree to do something illegal. It can be less obvious if the EULA requires the user to agree to something illegal the copyright holder is doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking annoying or unethical or evil makes it illegal. Several examples on this page point out how a clause can fool a user into believing the intent of clause without realizing the true meaning of the clause is not the intent of the clause. But lack of illegality can occur with any of the shown examples.
For the good of the UVL site, I won't be naming names for software companies that engage in illegal (or questionable) license agreements. Google it if you's like to know more. It seems unnecessary since none of these examples apply to a license agreement for a game and serve only to provide examples to UVL editors of what to look for. Individual game entries of course should be specific with names and crimes.
At times in the software industry, publishers have attempted to impose many odd restrictions on customers and potential customers in efforts to control how there software is not only copied, but also how it is used. Additionally, publishers have attempted to circumvent aspects of law that they believe are unfavorable to their business model. Reverse Engineering, for example, is a right granted by US law. Some EULAs specifically forbid Reverse Engineering. For this type of clause, publishers have gotten their way in legal disputes and the law does allow them to forbid reverse engineering in some cases by the person who agreed to the EULA (so it's not an entirety useful clause). A user making a copy for their own use of software that they own is a right granted by US law. Publishers have not only failed at restricting this right using EULAs, but legal disputes have even, in rare cases, resulted in publishers being forced to provide copiability to customers. Publishers actually can use many different methods to prevent fair use copies, but not by using an EULA. Microsoft's Reverse Engineering clause is especially clever in informing the user that they have a constitutional right to Reverse Engineering but twists the wording to make it seem like they are agreeing they don't have that right. (So, I'm probably going to be naming Microsoft, as an exception)
A license agreement that tells users they may not criticize the product is probably illegal. Careful wording can be used to make the reader believe that the agreement forbids criticizing when it actually does not. But, actually forbidding free speech is illegal in many jurisdictions.
There are license agreements that claim the software provider can search your property. Illegal in most jurisdictions. I have not seen this worded carefully; they just basically outright claim 'we have the right to search your property'
'Benchmarking is not allowed'. Violates many laws of personal rights and public good. But also, a violation of causality. As just running the game allows the player to judge how well it runs on their system.
If one agrees to 'automatic updates without notification' then the software provider is under imminent threat of violating law (as soon as they push an update). While an EULA is not a contract, a sale of a product or service meets the minimum legal definition of a contract (in all jurisdictions for thousands of years). Changing the already purchased product without antiquate and prior notification to the customer, is a violation of contract. Note, a software provider can change an already purchased product; they just can do it without proper notification each time they do. Additionally, many jurisdictions require that the user be given the option to opt-out (rather then needing to take extraordinary efforts to prevent an update from succeeding)
Installation of 3rd-party software without notification. This is like the above example, plus, the 3rd-party software may have licensing agreements that the user did not even have a chance to not agree to. Several layers of illegal. I will that Microsoft that does this. They let 3rd parties install DRM and even predatory software to seek out and erase content that is determined to be acquired illegally (determined by the covert software). So when you family photos and videos vanish, now you know why. But this is hardly the worst case. Another company wants to have users agree to let covert 3rd-party software sabotage content and software they is determined to be illegal rather than erase it outright (a competitor's software? Well it must be a pirated copy). But there's even worse agreements. There are licensing agreements that say covert 3rd-party software is allowed to be installed without notification to do whatever it wants and CHARGE YOUR CREDIT CARD for this service while using an alias so as not to be easily traceable when the charge is seen on the bill.
'don't uninstall bundled software'. Basically, the licensing agreement claims a 3rd a party software, prettymuch malware or adware malware, is required. Well if it was, then they shouldn't need to tell users not to uninstall it.
'don't use this software with our competitor's software'. Maybe this should be under the obvious illegal category.
'don't use any software that interacts with this software'.
'agree to all future agreements'.
These statements require alterations to reality to allow any interaction with a legal frame of reference.
Warranty disclaimers are worded carefully to not reveal that the software provider must offer a warranty that complies with local laws while simultaneously suggesting that they don't have to. I don't expect any warranty disclaimers will every meet the definition of license-illegal.
"OUR PRIVACY POLICY, TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL STATEMENTS IN THIS AGREEMENT". As the Privacy Policy of the company is not public (in this case), the EULA is illegal. Even if a Privacy Policy is public, it cannot simply override an EULA which is a separate document the user must agree to. A Privacy Policy is not always something the user must agree to. It may just be a statement by the provider of the software. Look closely at the language of the Privacy Policy. Often the user is required to agree that they have read and sometimes agree that they have read and understand it, not that they agree to it or with it. If Privacy Policy and EULA are a single document the user must agree to, and the privacy police does in fact contradict the EULA (contradicts itself), then license-contradictory applies rather than license-illegal.
Note the "Aspects" in the title of this group. Due to the nature of licensing agreements, which are not contracts, if one or more aspects (clauses) of a licensing agreement are illegal, unenforceable, contradictory, unintelligible, a violations of physics, or have some other similar state, this does not render the rest of the licensing agreement void (as it would in a contract). Publishers can and have put everything they can think of into an ELUA hoping enough of it is valid that it still works for them.
If an EULA, for example, tells the user to restrict someone else's legal rights. Also the obvious, if the EULA tells the users to agree to do something illegal. It can be less obvious if the EULA requires the user to agree to something illegal the copyright holder is doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking annoying or unethical or evil makes it illegal. Several examples on this page point out how a clause can fool a user into believing the intent of clause without realizing the true meaning of the clause is not the intent of the clause. But lack of illegality can occur with any of the shown examples.
For the good of the UVL site, I won't be naming names for software companies that engage in illegal (or questionable) license agreements. Google it if you's like to know more. It seems unnecessary since none of these examples apply to a license agreement for a game and serve only to provide examples to UVL editors of what to look for. Individual game entries of course should be specific with names and crimes.
At times in the software industry, publishers have attempted to impose many odd restrictions on customers and potential customers in efforts to control how there software is not only copied, but also how it is used. Additionally, publishers have attempted to circumvent aspects of law that they believe are unfavorable to their business model. Reverse Engineering, for example, is a right granted by US law. Some EULAs specifically forbid Reverse Engineering. For this type of clause, publishers have gotten their way in legal disputes and the law does allow them to forbid reverse engineering in some cases by the person who agreed to the EULA (so it's not an entirety useful clause). A user making a copy for their own use of software that they own is a right granted by US law. Publishers have not only failed at restricting this right using EULAs, but legal disputes have even, in rare cases, resulted in publishers being forced to provide copiability to customers. Publishers actually can use many different methods to prevent fair use copies, but not by using an EULA. Microsoft's Reverse Engineering clause is especially clever in informing the user that they have a constitutional right to Reverse Engineering but twists the wording to make it seem like they are agreeing they don't have that right. (So, I'm probably going to be naming Microsoft, as an exception)
A license agreement that tells users they may not criticize the product is probably illegal. Careful wording can be used to make the reader believe that the agreement forbids criticizing when it actually does not. But, actually forbidding free speech is illegal in many jurisdictions.
There are license agreements that claim the software provider can search your property. Illegal in most jurisdictions. I have not seen this worded carefully; they just basically outright claim 'we have the right to search your property'
'Benchmarking is not allowed'. Violates many laws of personal rights and public good. But also, a violation of causality. As just running the game allows the player to judge how well it runs on their system.
If one agrees to 'automatic updates without notification' then the software provider is under imminent threat of violating law (as soon as they push an update). While an EULA is not a contract, a sale of a product or service meets the minimum legal definition of a contract (in all jurisdictions for thousands of years). Changing the already purchased product without antiquate and prior notification to the customer, is a violation of contract. Note, a software provider can change an already purchased product; they just can do it without proper notification each time they do. Additionally, many jurisdictions require that the user be given the option to opt-out (rather then needing to take extraordinary efforts to prevent an update from succeeding)
Installation of 3rd-party software without notification. This is like the above example, plus, the 3rd-party software may have licensing agreements that the user did not even have a chance to not agree to. Several layers of illegal. I will that Microsoft that does this. They let 3rd parties install DRM and even predatory software to seek out and erase content that is determined to be acquired illegally (determined by the covert software). So when you family photos and videos vanish, now you know why. But this is hardly the worst case. Another company wants to have users agree to let covert 3rd-party software sabotage content and software they is determined to be illegal rather than erase it outright (a competitor's software? Well it must be a pirated copy). But there's even worse agreements. There are licensing agreements that say covert 3rd-party software is allowed to be installed without notification to do whatever it wants and CHARGE YOUR CREDIT CARD for this service while using an alias so as not to be easily traceable when the charge is seen on the bill.
'don't uninstall bundled software'. Basically, the licensing agreement claims a 3rd a party software, prettymuch malware or adware malware, is required. Well if it was, then they shouldn't need to tell users not to uninstall it.
'don't use this software with our competitor's software'. Maybe this should be under the obvious illegal category.
'don't use any software that interacts with this software'.
'agree to all future agreements'.
These statements require alterations to reality to allow any interaction with a legal frame of reference.
Warranty disclaimers are worded carefully to not reveal that the software provider must offer a warranty that complies with local laws while simultaneously suggesting that they don't have to. I don't expect any warranty disclaimers will every meet the definition of license-illegal.
"OUR PRIVACY POLICY, TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL STATEMENTS IN THIS AGREEMENT". As the Privacy Policy of the company is not public (in this case), the EULA is illegal. Even if a Privacy Policy is public, it cannot simply override an EULA which is a separate document the user must agree to. A Privacy Policy is not always something the user must agree to. It may just be a statement by the provider of the software. Look closely at the language of the Privacy Policy. Often the user is required to agree that they have read and sometimes agree that they have read and understand it, not that they agree to it or with it. If Privacy Policy and EULA are a single document the user must agree to, and the privacy police does in fact contradict the EULA (contradicts itself), then license-contradictory applies rather than license-illegal.
Note the "Aspects" in the title of this group. Due to the nature of licensing agreements, which are not contracts, if one or more aspects (clauses) of a licensing agreement are illegal, unenforceable, contradictory, unintelligible, a violations of physics, or have some other similar state, this does not render the rest of the licensing agreement void (as it would in a contract). Publishers can and have put everything they can think of into an ELUA hoping enough of it is valid that it still works for them.
Games by year
The first License: Illegal Aspects video game was released in 1987.
Platforms
| Apple II E |  | 2 |
|---|