On today’s episode of “This shouldn’t be legal”…

Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
-261Y

I haven’t read the entire agreement, so I don’t really know nor do I care to. But I suspect that it would squarely fall under protected speech once the game has gone public and they’ve “purchased” it.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
01Y

deleted by creator

Jo Miran
link
fedilink
English
161Y

Early access to a game is not an asset you can “un-receive” just because you purchase your own copy later. Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.

Other creators chimed in and said that they brought up the section in Discord and legal said they’d look into it. To me, this just seems as lazy copy and paste that they were warned about but did nothing about. Now they have a possible PR disaster on their hands unless they take swift action.

PS: Apparently section 2.6 is way worse but it hasn’t been shared yet.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
-181Y

Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.

This is what I mean by unenforceable.

Jo Miran
link
fedilink
English
111Y

I see. That’s not what “unenforceable” means. Unenforceable refers to a contractual responsibility that a court would never enforce. There are many reasons why a court would chosen to not enforce a contract but none of them are because a defendant doesn’t have the means to combat it.

See: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
-21Y

Your linked to an article literally starts by asking “What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?” and then goes on to explain this as one of these as “For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law.” Basically proving my point.

And I’m universally downvoted, and you’re universally upvoted. Lemmy users crack me up.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
51Y

What exactly do you mean by “protected speech”?

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
-171Y

Protected by the law.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
31Y

Just like truth in advertising laws exist, some restrictions are rightly placed on free speech in the interest of consumer protection. Imo this case clearly should fall under similar consideration.

Jo Miran
link
fedilink
English
2
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
8
edit-2
1Y

Which law?

I ask, because many times people point to the first amendment for things like this, but that doesn’t apply here.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
-21Y

The CRFA.

Create a post

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

  • 1 user online
  • 679 users / day
  • 1.27K users / week
  • 2.71K users / month
  • 6.48K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 5.78K Posts
  • 117K Comments
  • Modlog