changes in TOS

Uryel

starkerealm wrote: »

KyraCROgnon wrote: »

Do you guys at ZOS legal service know that this type of practice has been ruled illegal in France (and probably all of EU) ?

Really, signing a contract is illegal in France? News to me.

It's not. But contracts have strict rules in France, far removed from the simple "mutual agreement" that can be revoked almost instantly that serves as a basis for most "soft law" countries such as the USA. Granted, I'm no expert in foreign laws, and not quite the expert in local law either. I did go to law school, but as a tourist (modest entry fee to be allowed to go to any class, any time, but can't obtain any degree whatsoever. I binge-learnt the equivalent of 4 years in only 1, in some selected fields), so my own understanding might be incomplete.

In 2016, french laws regarding contracts were updated to protect the weak party in a contract. Prior to that, the rules were still the ones devised by Napoleon 1 back in 1804. Those rules were themselves based on the idea of "mutual agreement", as the new ones are, but assumed that every party is equal and negotiations are always fair and square, which is bullsh*t.

Long story short, law now expressely states that for a contract to be valid, both parties must be properly informed of their mutual obligations, what it will cost... Basically everything the contract implies. So, care must be taken to give a proper level of information lest you risk to see your contract invalidated by a court.

Now, saying that a contract cannot be changed is false, of course. Each party may offer a change, and that change can bring a new negociation upon which parties may or may not reach a new agreement. In case of companies changing their products / services / terms of services, the legal consensus is that, if the new terms of services / products / services are not to the user's / subscriber's liking, they can cancel the service free of charge. For instance, if you have subscribed to a landline with a forced period of 1 year (I don' know the legal term in english, basically when you have to remain subscribed else penalty applies), but the company changes their services and / or tarification before that, you may resign from the service without any penalty. Because what you had agreed upon no longer exists, you are no longer bound by that agreement. To avoid losing money, many companies will have overlapping services, keeping the old ones for those who signed them, but not offering them anymore.

In case of an online only shared service such as a game, old services can't be kept (I would still play on update 19 where my Bosmer was still stealthy, if we could), you are informed of the new conditions of service and agree or not. If not, feel free not to use the service anymore.

I don't think a full description of every change is needed. Not sure about that, though. But considering that you WERE informed of said terms of service prior to that day, and agreed to them, the court would probably consider that your supposed to remember what you agreed upon. Thus, providing the new terms of service should be enough to compare. Might also be that this wouldn't hold, because no written reference of the old terms exists and it makes it impossible for the user to have access to a proper level of information. I'm really not sure about that one.

The only problem I can see is when you have an ongoing subscription to the service that goes past the date the new terms apply. In regular services, such as a landline, you can get your money back. Here... The service isn't the same, or the terms of services are different, so theoretically if you disagree, you should get your money back for everything covering the period that goes past the change date, but that also means your account should be disabled to prevent fraudulent claims of disagreement. But this is not my specialty at all.

Heck, my specialty, if I can call it that, is "basic" contract law with a more indepth knowledge of work contracts, and everything pertaining to workers' rights and obligations. Also, laws pertaining to family and such. Makes my job as a social worker alot easier, which is the very reason I did go to law school. Litigious commercial contracts, that's something I only know a few things about.

Killum

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

These are the changes in rough.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/480439/pc-mac-patch-notes-v5-0-9

Terms of Service

• Updated the in-game Terms of Service, which you will need to re-accept when first logging in after this patch. While we encourage you to review the document in its entirety, below are a high level (not comprehensive) list of changes:
• The TOS will now cover all ZeniMax games, rather than just ESO.
• Any instance previously stating "used" is now "accessed, played, purchased, received, or used".
• Added greater clarification of the differences between the Privacy Policy, EULA, and the TOS.
• Added additional text specific to Japan, Turkey, Brazil, and UK players.
• Added warnings relating to Virtual Reality.
• Added additional clarifications for what the company is responsible for in regards to data privacy.
• Updated the text for merchandise codes or redemptions to include Japanese virtual currency expiration laws and information for unlinking accounts.
• Made clarifications regarding sharing game accounts.
• Adjusted some text in the Free Trial section.
• Re-wrote the section on Paid Services to include resellers.
• Adjusted the text involving refunds and warranties.
• Added additional clarifications relating to third party internet connections and hardware.
• Updated sections involving the European dispute resolution and governing law for US residents versus external parties.

Added warnings related to virtual reality? I hope that's because they plan to add a VR compatibility to the game

This EULA is an 'Umberella' Eula, it now applies to ALL of their games. The VR stuff may or may not apply to ESO in the future but it does apply to Skyrim.

Edited for typo.

srfrogg23

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Cundu_Ertur - yah.... I was digging when it got posted. Net was out for a bit, but hey, it did get posted.

@srfrogg23 - I'm all for VR.... as long as a game without same is still available. As someone with serious vertigo issues, VR.... would mean I couldn't play at all if it was the only option.

Why would it be the only option for a game that has been out as a non-VR game for over 5 years? That would be an incredibly stupid decision for any developer to make.

"We know you have been playing this game for 5 years without a VR headset, but we have decided it is time for people to either spend an extra $400 on a headset and a yearly supply of dexamethasone or GTFO!"

srfrogg23

Killum wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

These are the changes in rough.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/480439/pc-mac-patch-notes-v5-0-9

Terms of Service

• Updated the in-game Terms of Service, which you will need to re-accept when first logging in after this patch. While we encourage you to review the document in its entirety, below are a high level (not comprehensive) list of changes:
• The TOS will now cover all ZeniMax games, rather than just ESO.
• Any instance previously stating "used" is now "accessed, played, purchased, received, or used".
• Added greater clarification of the differences between the Privacy Policy, EULA, and the TOS.
• Added additional text specific to Japan, Turkey, Brazil, and UK players.
• Added warnings relating to Virtual Reality.
• Added additional clarifications for what the company is responsible for in regards to data privacy.
• Updated the text for merchandise codes or redemptions to include Japanese virtual currency expiration laws and information for unlinking accounts.
• Made clarifications regarding sharing game accounts.
• Adjusted some text in the Free Trial section.
• Re-wrote the section on Paid Services to include resellers.
• Adjusted the text involving refunds and warranties.
• Added additional clarifications relating to third party internet connections and hardware.
• Updated sections involving the European dispute resolution and governing law for US residents versus external parties.

Added warnings related to virtual reality? I hope that's because they plan to add a VR compatibility to the game

This EULA is an 'Umberella' Eula, it now applies to ALL of their games. The VR stuff may or may not apply to ESO in the future but it does apply to Skyrim.

Edited for typo.

My parade has been successfully rained on

The_Lex

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

As someone that actually went to law school, trust me, you don’t. Haha

Haha. I told him the same thing!

The_Lex

valeriiya wrote: »

As long as their outside legal is Piper they're pretty well represented in any court case.

And paying some serious fees! I know Piper is a prestigious firm, but they charge an obscene amount of money for their services.

Turelus

The_Lex wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

As someone that actually went to law school, trust me, you don’t. Haha

Haha. I told him the same thing!

I did note this is a trend in comments from people I speak to. I have to ask why?

The_Lex

nafensoriel wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

Some of us did.

In the US a properly written and agreed to TOS agreement is still considered a legal agreement.

(This information is not offered as personal legal advice, please consult with an attorney regarding any personal inquiries)

Except for that whole signing under force since you can't read the TOS/EULA before purchase thing. Kinda eliminates the "contract" element entirely.

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

Whether anyone considers it binding or not is irrelevant. The law does and, consequently, so will a court of law in the US. There is much litigation and legal precedent that settles the issue.

The_Lex

Turelus wrote: »

The_Lex wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

As someone that actually went to law school, trust me, you don’t. Haha

Haha. I told him the same thing!

I did note this is a trend in comments from people I speak to. I have to ask why?

Other than being very difficult and amazingly expensive? Haha. It boils down to a cost/benefit analysis. In America, there is a glut of lawyers. Baby Boomers are not retiring as early as their predecessors, which makes it harder for newly minted lawyers to find a job. So many take lower paying jobs with a huge debt burden. Those who can get a job in a larger firm, have to work an enormous amount of hours to make their billable hours quotas.

That said, if done right, it can be rewarding. I'm generally happy with my decision.

Grimm13

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »

They're in the patch notes and you can read them before accepting them.

No, they're not in the patch notes.

The entire TOS isn't in the patch notes since it's in-game when you log in, but a high-level summary of changes is included. Where are you not seeing it?

I believe they would prefer to see the old TOS with strike thrus and the new replacement clauses showing in red so it is clear what was and how it was changed. The patch notes would have been a logical place for that or a note of it's own.

I also would have liked to see a print option of the New TOS.

nafensoriel

The_Lex wrote: »

Whether anyone considers it binding or not is irrelevant. The law does and, consequently, so will a court of law in the US. There is much litigation and legal precedent that settles the issue.

No. Most TOS agreements are treated as entirely irrelevant. The elements you think are attributed to TOS are more accurately attributed to "they used a service and we accepted payment for providing said service". TOS does not just apply to video games. Precedent actually sides with challenging the TOS for just about every single category except arbitration agreements which was recently given a pro-business bump thanks to the US Senate.

The main reason for failure is even as an agreement(some people don't get quotation marks) it is made under force after purchase. While the TOS is open in many cases to read elsewhere it is typically not advertised nor known by the common person. Hell, a few years ago before the internet became such a staple for the information you had ZERO access to TOS and EULA documents before purchase. No judge will ever consider a video game TOS binding because it is only agreed to AFTER purchase and refunds will typically NOT be offered on the product should the purchaser refuse the TOS. It' becomes an agreement under force. Yes, there are exceptions but almost every single gaming TOS on the internet has this issue which is why almost no one uses a TOS as the main source for argument.


/edit
Just so people understand a bit more remember that laws are not switches. Everything is arguable.
If I commit murder just because its "against the law" does not mean I will automatically be sentenced. What it does mean is I would require a great argument or hope the police services collection of evidence was poor.
Nothing in a TOS is law. Everything is subject to argument. For any element of a TOS to survive argument, it would have to have additional supporting documents or actions. Usually using service/accepting payment are the main argument winners.

Nestor

Turelus wrote: »

The_Lex wrote: »

I love how when a company changes its TOS (in any game or social platform), people immediately become arm chair lawyers.

I made a comment on Slack to some others as soon as I saw ToS changes that the forums would be fun today.
We go through this every time, then everyone agrees and keeps playing the game.

I never worry about the TOS, I just play the game. How does the TOS really matter in a game?

Now, those TOS's on Social Media Sites, those are something to worry about.

TequilaFire

Goregrinder wrote: »

arena25 wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Americans don't settle, we throw the rotten tea in the harbor.

Ok, where is the LOL button when you need it?

What, does this guy think he's bettah than our tea, kid? Well he bettah calm his livah, or Im gonna smack him so haahd, his Ma' in southie's gonna feel the rumble of my thundah!

Big talk.

Idinuse

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

Er, you actually don't have to if you follow the news and read how the laws affect big companies (domestic and international) in your country, and what the rulings have been in many cases. ^^b

The_Lex

nafensoriel wrote: »

The_Lex wrote: »

Whether anyone considers it binding or not is irrelevant. The law does and, consequently, so will a court of law in the US. There is much litigation and legal precedent that settles the issue.

No. Most TOS agreements are treated as entirely irrelevant. The elements you think are attributed to TOS are more accurately attributed to "they used a service and we accepted payment for providing said service". TOS does not just apply to video games. Precedent actually sides with challenging the TOS for just about every single category except arbitration agreements which was recently given a pro-business bump thanks to the US Senate.

The main reason for failure is even as an agreement(some people don't get quotation marks) it is made under force after purchase. While the TOS is open in many cases to read elsewhere it is typically not advertised nor known by the common person. Hell, a few years ago before the internet became such a staple for the information you had ZERO access to TOS and EULA documents before purchase. No judge will ever consider a video game TOS binding because it is only agreed to AFTER purchase and refunds will typically NOT be offered on the product should the purchaser refuse the TOS. It' becomes an agreement under force. Yes, there are exceptions but almost every single gaming TOS on the internet has this issue which is why almost no one uses a TOS as the main source for argument.


/edit
Just so people understand a bit more remember that laws are not switches. Everything is arguable.
If I commit murder just because its "against the law" does not mean I will automatically be sentenced. What it does mean is I would require a great argument or hope the police services collection of evidence was poor.
Nothing in a TOS is law. Everything is subject to argument. For any element of a TOS to survive argument, it would have to have additional supporting documents or actions. Usually using service/accepting payment are the main argument winners.

I disagree with half of what you wrote, but I will not debate you since it's all a moot point anyway. I can pretty much guarantee that no one is going to challenge this thing in court. No attorney I know will take this case unless someone has been truly harmed by it. Too much cost...not enough payout.

Legislators won't be much help either. They'll debate the issue for so long that the servers will be shut down before it's settled. The right to a speedy trial notwithstanding, an actual turtle can move faster than courts and governments.

daemonios

Uryel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

KyraCROgnon wrote: »

Do you guys at ZOS legal service know that this type of practice has been ruled illegal in France (and probably all of EU) ?

Really, signing a contract is illegal in France? News to me.

It's not. But contracts have strict rules in France, far removed from the simple "mutual agreement" that can be revoked almost instantly that serves as a basis for most "soft law" countries such as the USA. Granted, I'm no expert in foreign laws, and not quite the expert in local law either. I did go to law school, but as a tourist (modest entry fee to be allowed to go to any class, any time, but can't obtain any degree whatsoever. I binge-learnt the equivalent of 4 years in only 1, in some selected fields), so my own understanding might be incomplete.

In 2016, french laws regarding contracts were updated to protect the weak party in a contract. Prior to that, the rules were still the ones devised by Napoleon 1 back in 1804. Those rules were themselves based on the idea of "mutual agreement", as the new ones are, but assumed that every party is equal and negotiations are always fair and square, which is bullsh*t.

Long story short, law now expressely states that for a contract to be valid, both parties must be properly informed of their mutual obligations, what it will cost... Basically everything the contract implies. So, care must be taken to give a proper level of information lest you risk to see your contract invalidated by a court.

Now, saying that a contract cannot be changed is false, of course. Each party may offer a change, and that change can bring a new negociation upon which parties may or may not reach a new agreement. In case of companies changing their products / services / terms of services, the legal consensus is that, if the new terms of services / products / services are not to the user's / subscriber's liking, they can cancel the service free of charge. For instance, if you have subscribed to a landline with a forced period of 1 year (I don' know the legal term in english, basically when you have to remain subscribed else penalty applies), but the company changes their services and / or tarification before that, you may resign from the service without any penalty. Because what you had agreed upon no longer exists, you are no longer bound by that agreement. To avoid losing money, many companies will have overlapping services, keeping the old ones for those who signed them, but not offering them anymore.

In case of an online only shared service such as a game, old services can't be kept (I would still play on update 19 where my Bosmer was still stealthy, if we could), you are informed of the new conditions of service and agree or not. If not, feel free not to use the service anymore.

I don't think a full description of every change is needed. Not sure about that, though. But considering that you WERE informed of said terms of service prior to that day, and agreed to them, the court would probably consider that your supposed to remember what you agreed upon. Thus, providing the new terms of service should be enough to compare. Might also be that this wouldn't hold, because no written reference of the old terms exists and it makes it impossible for the user to have access to a proper level of information. I'm really not sure about that one.

The only problem I can see is when you have an ongoing subscription to the service that goes past the date the new terms apply. In regular services, such as a landline, you can get your money back. Here... The service isn't the same, or the terms of services are different, so theoretically if you disagree, you should get your money back for everything covering the period that goes past the change date, but that also means your account should be disabled to prevent fraudulent claims of disagreement. But this is not my specialty at all.

Heck, my specialty, if I can call it that, is "basic" contract law with a more indepth knowledge of work contracts, and everything pertaining to workers' rights and obligations. Also, laws pertaining to family and such. Makes my job as a social worker alot easier, which is the very reason I did go to law school. Litigious commercial contracts, that's something I only know a few things about.

Soft law does not mean what you think it does, it describes acts or instruments which are not legally binding or enforceable, such as non-binding resolutions, declarations of principles, etc. It occurs in any legal system and is not a trademark of any single system in particular.

Contract law in common law countries ends up being actually very similar to contract law in civil law countries, though consumer/weak party protections do exist, and are stronger in some jurisdictions, such as basically all EU countries (which incidentally includes the UK, the original common law jurisdiction and the basis for the USA legal system).

Blanket statements such as "terms of service are illegal in the EU", which I've read recently on the forums, are crude oversimplifications. I know little of French laws, but they must have changed long before 2016, considering there has been an EU Directive on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods since at least 1999 just to give an example from the area of consumer rights.

I find it funny and scary to read the "legal advice" posted on public forums. Hopefully nobody relies on it exclusively to make any kind of important decision.

nafensoriel

The_Lex wrote: »

I disagree with half of what you wrote, but I will not debate you since it's all a moot point anyway. I can pretty much guarantee that no one is going to challenge this thing in court. No attorney I know will take this case unless someone has been truly harmed by it. Too much cost...not enough payout.

Legislators won't be much help either. They'll debate the issue for so long that the servers will be shut down before it's settled. The right to a speedy trial notwithstanding, an actual turtle can move faster than courts and governments.

Well, you mentioned you went to law school so disagreement is par for the course eh?
Though yes honestly we could go around the entire world ten times and still disagree. The only time a TOS for a video game will see a court is if a company manages to screw up so powerfully as to invite class action.

Hell, I'm still waiting on a permit adjustment for a house I no longer live in.

purple-magicb16_ESO

Uryel wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Uryel wrote: »

It's in the patch notes.

No, it's not.

Ahem...

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Terms of Service
Updated the in-game Terms of Service, which you will need to re-accept when first logging in after this patch. While we encourage you to review the document in its entirety, below are a high level (not comprehensive) list of changes:
The TOS will now cover all ZeniMax games, rather than just ESO.
Any instance previously stating "used" is now "accessed, played, purchased, received, or used".
Added greater clarification of the differences between the Privacy Policy, EULA, and the TOS.
Added additional text specific to Japan, Turkey, Brazil, and UK players.
Added warnings relating to Virtual Reality.
Added additional clarifications for what the company is responsible for in regards to data privacy.
Updated the text for merchandise codes or redemptions to include Japanese virtual currency expiration laws and information for unlinking accounts.
Made clarifications regarding sharing game accounts.
Adjusted some text in the Free Trial section.
Re-wrote the section on Paid Services to include resellers.
Adjusted the text involving refunds and warranties.
Added additional clarifications relating to third party internet connections and hardware.
Updated sections involving the European dispute resolution and governing law for US residents versus external parties.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/480439/pc-mac-patch-notes-v5-0-9#latest

This is a good high level overview. Thanks for posting. They need one of these that covers the entire document (if there isn't already) that point forms key areas in recognition of the fact that their main target audience is young gamers that are focused on playing online games and have no interest ins scrolling through 16 pages of legal jargon that they may or may not be able understand or grasp the full meaning of what they just read.

Royaji

purple-magicb16_ESO wrote: »

Uryel wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Uryel wrote: »

It's in the patch notes.

No, it's not.

Ahem...

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Terms of Service
Updated the in-game Terms of Service, which you will need to re-accept when first logging in after this patch. While we encourage you to review the document in its entirety, below are a high level (not comprehensive) list of changes:
The TOS will now cover all ZeniMax games, rather than just ESO.
Any instance previously stating "used" is now "accessed, played, purchased, received, or used".
Added greater clarification of the differences between the Privacy Policy, EULA, and the TOS.
Added additional text specific to Japan, Turkey, Brazil, and UK players.
Added warnings relating to Virtual Reality.
Added additional clarifications for what the company is responsible for in regards to data privacy.
Updated the text for merchandise codes or redemptions to include Japanese virtual currency expiration laws and information for unlinking accounts.
Made clarifications regarding sharing game accounts.
Adjusted some text in the Free Trial section.
Re-wrote the section on Paid Services to include resellers.
Adjusted the text involving refunds and warranties.
Added additional clarifications relating to third party internet connections and hardware.
Updated sections involving the European dispute resolution and governing law for US residents versus external parties.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/480439/pc-mac-patch-notes-v5-0-9#latest

their main target audience is young gamers

The game is rated M. If you are not old enough to have at least basic understanding of legal language, you shouldn't be here (and this is written in ToS, btw).

MartiniDaniels

Just noticed that TOS is a joke like a loading movie so I logged first time and agreed on my "overland" setting, did some dailies, then turned off game and replaced user_setting with trial settings... game asked to agree to TOS again.. I guess it will be like forever now ><

Huyen

The new updated ToS means that whatever game we play affiliated by ZoS, anf have a problem with, we have no rights at all and be screwed into oblivion for it.

starkerealm

Turelus wrote: »

Casdha wrote: »

Well the one thing that caught my attention that I was not aware of, Well lets just say I need to remember to log in at least once every 6 months.

I take this to mean they can take away your crown purchases after 180 days of no logging in or access to your craft bag if you don't have ESO+ (< I knew this part) and its contents after 180 days (< but not this).

A lot of MMO games have this in their ToS, I've never once seen it actually be used. My guess is it's some weird edge case legal coverage.
I don't think companies have the time or patience to sit and remove content from people every 180 days.

I've seen it used when the account has been terminated by the user. (I don't mean they unsubbed, I mean, they contacted customer support and asked for the account to be closed.) Like you said, the 180 days thing is probably some kind of edge case weirdness. Though, I wonder if inactive accounts are archived somehow, and that's a COYA in case the archive doesn't properly retain data.

starkerealm

Uryel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

KyraCROgnon wrote: »

Do you guys at ZOS legal service know that this type of practice has been ruled illegal in France (and probably all of EU) ?

Really, signing a contract is illegal in France? News to me.

It's not. But contracts have strict rules in France, far removed from the simple "mutual agreement" that can be revoked almost instantly that serves as a basis for most "soft law" countries such as the USA. Granted, I'm no expert in foreign laws, and not quite the expert in local law either. I did go to law school, but as a tourist (modest entry fee to be allowed to go to any class, any time, but can't obtain any degree whatsoever. I binge-learnt the equivalent of 4 years in only 1, in some selected fields), so my own understanding might be incomplete.

In 2016, french laws regarding contracts were updated to protect the weak party in a contract. Prior to that, the rules were still the ones devised by Napoleon 1 back in 1804. Those rules were themselves based on the idea of "mutual agreement", as the new ones are, but assumed that every party is equal and negotiations are always fair and square, which is bullsh*t.

Long story short, law now expressely states that for a contract to be valid, both parties must be properly informed of their mutual obligations, what it will cost... Basically everything the contract implies. So, care must be taken to give a proper level of information lest you risk to see your contract invalidated by a court.

Now, saying that a contract cannot be changed is false, of course. Each party may offer a change, and that change can bring a new negociation upon which parties may or may not reach a new agreement. In case of companies changing their products / services / terms of services, the legal consensus is that, if the new terms of services / products / services are not to the user's / subscriber's liking, they can cancel the service free of charge. For instance, if you have subscribed to a landline with a forced period of 1 year (I don' know the legal term in english, basically when you have to remain subscribed else penalty applies)...

Usually an, "early termination fee," or something to that effect. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single, "official," term for this.

Uryel wrote: »

...but the company changes their services and / or tarification before that, you may resign from the service without any penalty. Because what you had agreed upon no longer exists, you are no longer bound by that agreement. To avoid losing money, many companies will have overlapping services, keeping the old ones for those who signed them, but not offering them anymore.

In case of an online only shared service such as a game, old services can't be kept (I would still play on update 19 where my Bosmer was still stealthy, if we could), you are informed of the new conditions of service and agree or not. If not, feel free not to use the service anymore.

Yeah, unless French law is really weird on this subject, that's not that dissimilar from American law. Though, to be honest, this does get out of my area of expertise as well. Primarily, the difference is that France has better consumer protection laws in place, so those elements of the contract would be tossed if you took them to court. However, that doesn't (usually) mean the entire contract would be tossed, just those clauses.

Uryel wrote: »

I don't think a full description of every change is needed. Not sure about that, though.

It wouldn't surprise me if this is, legally, necessary somewhere in the world. At the same time, I suspect the, "change log" in the patch notes is legally sufficient to satisfy those legal requirements.

Uryel wrote: »

But considering that you WERE informed of said terms of service prior to that day, and agreed to them, the court would probably consider that your supposed to remember what you agreed upon. Thus, providing the new terms of service should be enough to compare. Might also be that this wouldn't hold, because no written reference of the old terms exists and it makes it impossible for the user to have access to a proper level of information. I'm really not sure about that one.

The only problem I can see is when you have an ongoing subscription to the service that goes past the date the new terms apply. In regular services, such as a landline, you can get your money back. Here... The service isn't the same, or the terms of services are different, so theoretically if you disagree, you should get your money back for everything covering the period that goes past the change date, but that also means your account should be disabled to prevent fraudulent claims of disagreement. But this is not my specialty at all.

In that specific case, contacting customer support should get you the balance of the unused subscription time refunded. I'm not 100% certain what Customer Support's policy is, but if they didn't refund it, and the user found the new terms unsatisfactory and didn't agree to them, they might be entitled to reimbursement. If Customer Support refused, then you would have a tort, but the amount of money involved would be so small, I kinda doubt it'd be worth filing the paperwork.

Uryel wrote: »

Heck, my specialty, if I can call it that, is "basic" contract law with a more indepth knowledge of work contracts, and everything pertaining to workers' rights and obligations. Also, laws pertaining to family and such. Makes my job as a social worker alot easier, which is the very reason I did go to law school. Litigious commercial contracts, that's something I only know a few things about.

Yeah, in fairness, it's been a long time since I took international law in college. About the only part of that I still use semi-regularly, is copyright law, so everything else has been left to atrophy. I did spend time learning about contract law, but it's extremely fuzzy at this point.

Thogard

I noticed that “stalking” another player was on the TOS as a prohibited activity.

I also noticed that doxing was on there as a prohibited activity.

Are those new or have they always been there?

Also, I looked and didn’t see anything about macros, one way or the other. Only cheat programs and memory injection seems to be disallowed. I could’ve sworn macros were banned on there last time.. maybe I didn’t see it?

THEDKEXPERIENCE

Zenimax is an American company. The laws here are pretty clear.

Law - Do you have the most money?

Yes? You win

rfennell_ESO

KyraCROgnon wrote: »

ok so after today's patch i have to accept your new ToS. With NO hint at the changes since last time. Do you guys at ZOS legal service know that this type of practice has been ruled illegal in France (and probably all of EU) ? you have to list the changes from previous version in a clear way so we can give an informed answer !

The real purpose of nearly any TOS (or EULA) is to force you to lawyer up to dispute it (thereby eliminating 99.999% of disputes).

Most of these "agreements" have long had not legally binding (or enforceable) statements within them. e.g. you signing away rights on things that have not yet occured (which you can't even legally consent to in the USA).

Forcing disputes into the legal arena is really their only purpose.

MartiniDaniels

THEDKEXPERIENCE wrote: »

Zenimax is an American company. The laws here are pretty clear.

Law - Do you have the most money?

Yes? You win

It's the same everywhere. But at least in USA it's like "government > money > people". In other countries it's mostly just "money > people" and government is just a facade for money.

THEDKEXPERIENCE

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

THEDKEXPERIENCE wrote: »

Zenimax is an American company. The laws here are pretty clear.

Law - Do you have the most money?

Yes? You win

It's the same everywhere. But at least in USA it's like "government > money > people". In other countries it's mostly just "money > people" and government is just a facade for money.

Um ... our President is Donald Trump. Just saying.

Jeremy

KyraCROgnon wrote: »

ok so after today's patch i have to accept your new ToS. With NO hint at the changes since last time. Do you guys at ZOS legal service know that this type of practice has been ruled illegal in France (and probably all of EU) ? you have to list the changes from previous version in a clear way so we can give an informed answer !

All of these "ToS" agreements are b.s. anyway and can be interpreted a million different ways on Sunday. I applaud the E.U. for standing up to them and for internet rights generally.

What we need are an established base of law that stipulates what is legal and what isn't because people shouldn't have to sign away their rights to use the internet - especially services which are open to the general public. Besides, it's the internet corporations who are the ones who should be having to sign Terms of Service agreements - not us. Which is to say they are the ones who should have to agree to respect the rights of their customers in order to do do business with the general public. Unfortunately It's backwards at the moment - and internet companies are allowed to basically make their own rules while hiding behind these ToS agreements. I'm so sick of all these cookies and trackers and God knows what else they put on my computer every time I visit their sites. Would we allow restaurant owners to insert tracking devices on their customers? I kind of doubt it.

rfennell_ESO

Thogard wrote: »

I noticed that “stalking” another player was on the TOS as a prohibited activity.

I also noticed that doxing was on there as a prohibited activity.

Are those new or have they always been there?

Also, I looked and didn’t see anything about macros, one way or the other. Only cheat programs and memory injection seems to be disallowed. I could’ve sworn macros were banned on there last time.. maybe I didn’t see it?

I'm sure it falls under automation.

Macros was never a particularly enforceable thing for them anyways.