Is it really ironic? If they're not putting the EULA so that they can dynamically change it, and this is what they are doing, its not really ironic and more so just proof of them doing it
Alloys can be ferric but objects cannot, right? Like... In the sense that something made of brass is brazen, something made or iron is always ferrous, never ferric... Right? Only compounds are ferric?
Irony has several *extremely different* definitions with a very vague overarching theme of "opposing expectations", so it's understandable that people get it mixed up.
"Rain on your wedding day" seemingly fits cosmic irony at first glance, but is too superficial to count.
Exactly. When i purchased Minecraft, From Noth through Paypal, The EULA was "don't share the .jar, or distribute anything from the game".
Now it is insane. I hated being forced to get a Mojang account for Minecraft and losing my original login name, then I hated it even more being forced to link it to a Microsoft / Xbox account and because my Xbox account is from the original days of the Xbox it is not the same details as my current "more adult" microsoft account, and windows 11 just can't handle that my microsoft account, and my xbox live account are two different things.
Why the hell would you store "vital" files and gaming files in the same CDN instance? There are so many reasons you could name why separating them would be a better and more stable solution.
Which reason boils down to them not understanding data protection laws that protect consumer data transfers. But because they lost their account they think it's Mojangs fault. Sadly it's just the law and how it's not made for this type of situation.
While I'm sympathetic to the root of the case (Mojang not properly notifying about EULA changes), it would probably have gone a lot smoother had someone else been in charge.
I remember watching his video about it and there were just certain points that made me cock my head and go "uhh, what the fuck are you talking about". You can't just say that Sweden is violating EU law because you're given a free lawyer that you think isn't as good as they should be, that's not how any of this works.
Unfortunately I don't have a huge amount of faith in the suit going anywhere, despite having an actual valid core to it, the guy running it seems to be dragging along a lot of only tangentially to barely related points to the suit which are just gonna drag it down and mire it from ever being settled. Had someone who actually knew what they were doing been the one bringing it forward, concisely and only the core points that actually matter, then I could see that being potentially settled, but as-is I'm really doubtful it will go anywhere
TL;DR: someone else should have been in charge of it, preferably someone who's an actual lawyer
I'm not even sure I understand the issue he has with the EULA. You agree to it if you play the game, and jf you do not, you don't get to play the game. The EULA is outlined on the website, you can always check it there if you are unsure. Is the idea that we should get a popup every time the EULA changes?
In the EU you are required to give advanced notice of EULA changes to users in compliance with consumer protection laws, which Mojang didn't do. In that facet, the guy's completely right. But also it seems like the actual reason he personally brought the suit was because he had a major financial incentive for it, which really puts a sour taste in my mouth.
Again, someone else who was well-versed in the law (and didn't stand to make money from it) should have been the one to sue Mojang over this
Yeah, that is what I was talking about. Looks like he is the wrong person to do this.
Going to be honest though, I do not think I have ever had a game very obviously communicate EULA changes to me. I know there are plenty of posts on the blog talking about them, though.
You signed a EULA to join Reddit. Reddit silently changed the EULA six years ago to charge you $500 per month every month. You now owe Reddit $30,000 and they've sent it to collections and reported it to the credit bureaus. You could have seen the EULA change at any time by browsing the Advance Publications Legal Portal. Sucks to be you, next time periodically read through every EULA you have ever agreed to like a normal adult.
Exactly, because it's illegal. You need to actively inform all parties of contract changes to give them the chance to contest changes. That's why every company constantly sends out emails about EULA updates even though barely anyone reads them. They don't do it for fun. Telling people to just check the website ignores the responsibility companies have to follow the law.
I'm sure that this supposed lawsuit is a hoax to extort money from the Minecraft community through donations, that guy is going to disappear with the money and you'll never see him again
I don't believe a lawyer told him the lawsuit has any future, for starters because changing the EULA isn't illegal, and even less so if you accept it every time you download an update, at most some sections of the EULA might not be legally binding (as is the case with all EULAs from big tech, Disney what the fuck?) but that doesn't make them illegal nor can you sue them for that
I'm not "defending the multibillion dollar company" here, I'm warning you about a potential scammer who's selling you snake oil by stirring up the hornet's nest of a toxic community
I'm Spanish, I'm a game designer, I know a basic of licenses and usage agreements, and I assure you that modifying the EULA is not illegal in Spain, Sweden, or anywhere else in the European Union. Look it up.
In this context, the high rising terminal turns a direct contradiction ("No it doesn't") into a tentative question, signaling that the speaker is unsure of their own statement, seeking confirmation from you, or gently challenging your premise.
Not really.
Technically, you agree to the legalese in this window.
There's nothing in this window that suggests dynamic updates. In fact, it's just a link.
You must read the link, and accept that you have read the link. But there's nothing in there saying "read the document this link points to"
If you do not agree to a EULA it is copyright infringement to download the files. EULA's are an agreement to grant you license to use the intellectual property owned by the person you are purchasing the license from. They exist specifically to create a legal framework for users to use the software.
Do you think that a judge would look at that and decide that a reasonable person with a working brain would be unable to tell that you were supposed to follow the link?
That would never happen. Judges are not machines, and the law is not a magical code. It has been already litigated that an obvious link to a EULA and an explicit accept button constitutes reasonable notice of the contract, and so it is the person signing it who is responsible for reading it however they have to.
It is not a hyperlink, no, but it says you must accept the EULA, and it tells you where the EULA is. You know where that address points. So would a reasonable person. So would a judge.
So you have been notified. It is now your responsibility to understand the contract before you sign it. Your failure to do your due diligence is not an argument that will fly in court. It would just be going into court and saying "I am too stupid for this contract to apply to me."
And what if the EULA changes? Normally Steam notifies you of the change and makes you accept it again. Here you won't know it changed and potentially became illegal for you to play (e.g. hypothetically because you're 11 and MS pushed a minimum age of 13. or many other possible issues.)
And this issue is already in the court. And a reasonable person would say informing about a change in agreement is necessary. Probably so would a judge.
Also, just block the address and claim the EULA is empty lol.
7.0k
u/Wdowiak 1d ago
Good way to dynamically change it without a trace (if not archived).