26 Reply by Rattletrap (edited by Rattletrap 2010-12-31 18:13:22)

  • ASI-SE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Removal of all PVE islands as per the EULA.

""Yeah, a EULA doesn't count as any kind of legal document in the U.S.

Sorry, clicking "Accept" does not constitute an electronic signature.""

Yes, actually, it does. It's a contract. You intended, by way of pressing 'Accept' to agree to the terms of use and service. It's just as binding against you as your signature on a piece of paper. It is codified and readily accessible for anyone interested in researching it.

Now if the EULA was simply there for review and was not provided prior to use (for instance, by the very fact of posting you agree to the terms without clicking accept) there could be a question as to the validity of such an agreement. But by allowing for prior review, acceptance and agreement before any benefit is gained, it meets all the criteria for an electronic signature.

But if you want to continue spreading incorrect information online, go right ahead. Everyone else is doing it, why not join in the fun.

Rattletrap

  • ENCLV
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Removal of all PVE islands as per the EULA.

Snowstyle wrote:

I believe that FFXI's EULA or TOS stated that if you took Square to court you had to defend them at the trial.

That is called an indemnification clause. Many contracts have them.

  • bro's
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Removal of all PVE islands as per the EULA.

Astraea wrote:
Snowstyle wrote:

I believe that FFXI's EULA or TOS stated that if you took Square to court you had to defend them at the trial.

That is called an indemnification clause. Many contracts have them.

And, like many other parts of the EULAs, it's unenforceable.

  • QD
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Removal of all PVE islands as per the EULA.

I prefer to summarise EULAs for MMOs as follows:

"You do stuff we don't like, we ban you. kkthnxbye."

*Insert really awesome sig here*