So, I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I do work my legal dept a lot on reviewing software contracts before we sign them and integrate them into our tech stack. Two things come to my mind: My legal...
So, I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I do work my legal dept a lot on reviewing software contracts before we sign them and integrate them into our tech stack. Two things come to my mind:
My legal dept would NEVER sign off on a ToS that allows for fees to change at any time in the future. I realize a lot of indie devs are affected here, but the larger companies probably had this portion redlined and aren't impacted.
I don't understand how a contract that basically allows for the contract to change at any time is legal. My guess (again IANAL) is that if this goes to court that section would be deemed unenforceable. Unity is probably bluffing the small companies that can't afford drawn out legal battles.
From my understanding, previous versions of the contract didn't include it. In fact, this post on reddit shows previous versions of the TOS directly contradict that. Unity tried to cover it up by...
Companies banding together can initiate a class action lawsuit, yes. Not sure how viable it is, however. I have a feeling a lot of confidential data of the claimants would have to be shared in...
Companies banding together can initiate a class action lawsuit, yes. Not sure how viable it is, however. I have a feeling a lot of confidential data of the claimants would have to be shared in this scenario (as opposed to individual lawsuits), but also IANAL.
Yeah, imagine having spent years making a game in Unity, and having the fees completely changed on you now that you're basically completely locked in. Nobody involved in this decision can ever be...
Yeah, imagine having spent years making a game in Unity, and having the fees completely changed on you now that you're basically completely locked in. Nobody involved in this decision can ever be trusted again.
Tbh it feels like the foss movement has been screaming this stuff in to the void for the last decade but no one was listening. Now all the “they might do this in the future”s have become real.
Tbh it feels like the foss movement has been screaming this stuff in to the void for the last decade but no one was listening. Now all the “they might do this in the future”s have become real.
Yeah, imagine having spent years making a game in Unity, and having the fees completely changed on you now that you're basically completely locked in. Nobody involved in this decision can ever be...
Yeah, imagine having spent years making a game in Unity, and having the fees completely changed on you now that you're basically completely locked in. Nobody involved in this decision can ever be trusted again.
IANAL, but I wonder if there's an argument to be made that this violates the first sale doctrine. Unity may have a licensing agreement with the developers, but they don't have a the same licensing...
IANAL, but I wonder if there's an argument to be made that this violates the first sale doctrine. Unity may have a licensing agreement with the developers, but they don't have a the same licensing agreement with the consumers. Once the developers sell a copy of the game, I would think Unity's interest in that copy ends.
Also NAL, but since the final consumer doesn't actually have any contract with Unity nor do they actually have to pay Unity that fee, I don't think it applies. To me the most absurd thing is them...
Also NAL, but since the final consumer doesn't actually have any contract with Unity nor do they actually have to pay Unity that fee, I don't think it applies.
To me the most absurd thing is them believing they can just charge Microsoft and Sony (and possibly Nvidia) for their subscription services. The second that bill reaches their mailbox, lawsuits will be flying.
So, I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I do work my legal dept a lot on reviewing software contracts before we sign them and integrate them into our tech stack. Two things come to my mind:
My legal dept would NEVER sign off on a ToS that allows for fees to change at any time in the future. I realize a lot of indie devs are affected here, but the larger companies probably had this portion redlined and aren't impacted.
I don't understand how a contract that basically allows for the contract to change at any time is legal. My guess (again IANAL) is that if this goes to court that section would be deemed unenforceable. Unity is probably bluffing the small companies that can't afford drawn out legal battles.
From my understanding, previous versions of the contract didn't include it. In fact, this post on reddit shows previous versions of the TOS directly contradict that. Unity tried to cover it up by removing the github repo, but as you can see, the records still remained. No way that wouldn't come up in court.
I'll be surprised if there isn't a class action lawsuit over this, especially since they changed terms so suddenly.
Companies banding together can initiate a class action lawsuit, yes. Not sure how viable it is, however. I have a feeling a lot of confidential data of the claimants would have to be shared in this scenario (as opposed to individual lawsuits), but also IANAL.
Humble bundle is offering a Learn Godot bundle. It's nice to see markets and individual values responding.
Yeah, imagine having spent years making a game in Unity, and having the fees completely changed on you now that you're basically completely locked in. Nobody involved in this decision can ever be trusted again.
Tbh it feels like the foss movement has been screaming this stuff in to the void for the last decade but no one was listening. Now all the “they might do this in the future”s have become real.
Yeah, imagine having spent years making a game in Unity, and having the fees completely changed on you now that you're basically completely locked in. Nobody involved in this decision can ever be trusted again.
Dupe
IANAL, but I wonder if there's an argument to be made that this violates the first sale doctrine. Unity may have a licensing agreement with the developers, but they don't have a the same licensing agreement with the consumers. Once the developers sell a copy of the game, I would think Unity's interest in that copy ends.
Also NAL, but since the final consumer doesn't actually have any contract with Unity nor do they actually have to pay Unity that fee, I don't think it applies.
To me the most absurd thing is them believing they can just charge Microsoft and Sony (and possibly Nvidia) for their subscription services. The second that bill reaches their mailbox, lawsuits will be flying.