Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ScummVM Developers Barred From Using PayPal

Posted by Hemos on Mon Sep 04, 2006 08:46 AM
from the stupid-moves dept.
lskovlund writes "The ScummVM developers have received notice that their use of PayPal for donations is in violation of PayPal's AUP. According to a forum post, the AUP bans 'Game enhancers (which enable the play of import software and/or back up versions of software).'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • "Backup copies" (Score:4, Informative)

    by unfunk (804468) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:50AM (#16037471) Journal
    well, ScummVM certainly doesn't allow me to play my "backup version" of Day of the Tentacle - the copy protection quiz is there in full effect :(
    • interesting... my legit talkie version doesn't have a copy protection quiz... could be because it came packaged with a graphics card... (picked up from a garage sale w/o the card...)
    • Re:"Backup copies" (Score:5, Informative)

      by fuzzix (700457) <fuzzbucket@eircom.net> on Monday September 04 2006, @09:51AM (#16037745) Homepage Journal
      well, ScummVM certainly doesn't allow me to play my "backup version" of Day of the Tentacle - the copy protection quiz is there in full effect :(

      ScummVM is also distributed with Broken Sword I & II these days. It must be the easiest way to run these games on modern Windows systems. Games such as Beneath a Steel Sky and Flight of the Amazon Queen have been released as freeware specifically to show off the capabilities of ScummVM and rekindle interest in these classic point-and-click adventures.

      I'd consider that "official endorsment" from the original creators of these games. It's not like the situation with Nintendo, who have spoken out against emulation as bad and evil and wrong and causes cancer - I assume this is the attitude which gave rise to Paypal's policy. ScummVM is a useful project with industry acceptance and the backing of the companies whose software it enables. It might behoove the original authors of the games to petition Paypal about their policy in this case - I've bought several LucasArts games to play on ScummVM and I reckon others have done the same. If ScummVM didn't exist it might not be so easy to run these games on my platform of choice and I wouldn't have bothered.
    • Try leaving the answer blank. ScummVM disables copy protection for SOME games I think (it might only be one or two non-LucasArts ones where the game devs gave the OK, I forget).
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:53AM (#16037482)
    Nochex, worldpay or whatever.
    • Actually I heard that they're starting to accept cash in the post........ please send your donations to.......

      *inserts own address*

      Thanks guys!
  • Why ?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2006, @08:53AM (#16037483)
    This is like VISA or mastercard all of a sudden decide that you can no longer by porn with their cards ?? make very little bussiness sense to me.

  • News? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BarryNorton (778694) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:56AM (#16037495)
    That PayPal enforce some arbitrary set of rules and close accounts is not news (not for several years). That they didn't confiscate the funds for once (?) maybe is...
  • by MarkusQ (450076) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:00AM (#16037513) Journal

    I've about had it with PayPal. They want to have it both ways--they want to be the blameless intermediary who can not be held responsible for what their customers do (in essence, a bank), yet they want to meddle in every transaction, and pass judgment on issues that are none of their business just because they hold the money.

    With a credit card company, at least they have the argument that--until you pay them back--it's their money on the line.

    Note that no laws are being broken, and so far as I can see no one even complained. This is as bad as a bank deciding that they didn't want to cash valid checks for some people because "we don't like your kind around here."

    --MarkusQ

    • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:21AM (#16037594) Homepage Journal
      With a credit card company, at least they have the argument that--until you pay them back--it's their money on the line.

      Sorry, I really don't believe credit card companies don't work that way. They just take the money. The impressions one might get on the "Internet" gives the impression that credit card companies are these angels and PayPal are demons, but the only difference is that CC companies are regulated, otherwise they would be worse than Paypal.

      If you are a merchant and there is a dispute, they can and will effectively remove money from your checking account and then they might be nice enough tell you they did it afterwards. It doesn't matter to them if you shipped a big item after you got an authorization, they can revoke the authorization anyway, even if you had the best intentions. This happened to my parents. Thankfully the buyer was honest and said that the transaction was legitimate, so they got their money.

      Also, if they authorize a transaction and it turns out to be fraudulent on the part of the buyer where the merchant acts in good faith to verify the card. The credit card companies will still just take the money from the merchant. If you don't have the money, they can just sue you. I had a friend who basically had the CC companies basically sue him out of business because of one large transaction that went bad.
      • I made a mistake.

        Sorry, I really don't believe credit card companies don't work that way.

        Should be:

        Sorry, I really don't believe credit card companies work that way.
      • Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MarkusQ (450076) on Monday September 04 2006, @10:11AM (#16037849) Journal
        but the only difference is that CC companies are regulated, otherwise they would be worse than Paypal.

        Agreed. Thus my point about them wanting to have it both ways. I used to have friends who worked for PayPal, and have a tenancy towards "let the market deal with it" solutions, but there comes a point where you're engaging in fraudulent practices and should be reined in.

        Either they aren't a bank, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to do banking, or they are, and they should have to play be the same rules as regular backs. Which, among other things, can't decide not to honor payments just because they don't like you.

        --MarkusQ

        P.S. I'm no fan of credit card companies either. Or loan sharks, or venture capitalists.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        the only difference is that CC companies are regulated

        In the UK, PayPal *are* regulated [paypal.com]. The Financial Services Authority [fsa.gov.uk] takes a dim view of electronic money institutions operating outwith their regulatory purview.

        If it walks like a duck, the FSA (rightly) wants to regulate it like a duck.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Personally, I think it reduces the credibility and trustworthiness of any service that claims to provide "alternatives to cash", yet places restrictions on who funds can be transferred to or from. Imagine if your phone company took it upon themselves to block incoming or outgoing phone calls to certain phone numbers based on information they obtained about the owners of the lines! Would you still stay with that phone service?

      I became aware of yet another evil little thing about PayPal recently. I used to
  • by tomhudson (43916) <hudsonNO@SPAMvideotron.ca> on Monday September 04 2006, @09:03AM (#16037520) Journal

    If feeBay wants to be consistent (ha - fat chance), they would have to ban a lot more stuff:

    "Game enhancers (which enable the play of import software and/or back up versions of software).'"

    They'd have to ban the sale of all new and used laptops, desktops, and game consoles - people use these all the time to play backups.

    BTW, "the play of import software" - so imported software is a no-no, but domestic software is okay?

    • BTW, "the play of import software" - so imported software is a no-no, but domestic software is okay?

      Regional lockouts in video game consoles are made specifically to enforce 17 USC 602 [bitlaw.com] and foreign counterparts, which claims that importation of a copy of a work without permission of the copyright owner is infringement despite the first sale limitation (17 USC 109 [bitlaw.com] and foreign counterparts) that applies domestically.

      • All the more reason why all computers, etc., should then be banned by fee-Bay. They all allow for the playing of imported software.
      • Region lockout of DVD movies is explicitly against European and British competition laws. All DVD players sold On The Continent should be region 0 / region 255 at time of purchase. Most brand-name DVD players sold in the UK are de-regionalisable using the remote control but are set to Region 2 at time of purchase. "No brand" DVD players sold in the UK are usually region 0 / region 255 at time of purchase and many can also play DivX movies.

        Region lockout of console games probably breaks exactly the same
        • Huh, maybe you're reading a different 17 USC 602 than the one I'm reading, which specifically states that it does not apply to "importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person".

          True, but the ban does manage to keep import games off of video game retailers' shelves, and it means that video game stores that sell import games to U.S. residents pursuant to 602(a)(2) have to ship each individual package from the country of origin, not import in bulk and ship domesticall

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      ...like the blatent illegal copies of my commercial software. The pages explicitely mention my companies name, product and version included in their blurbs. I've followed the standard eBay instructions, mailing (via their complaint form) the ID's of the ads and registering with their VeRO program. And they didn't even bother to contact me! I have done these steps a number of times in the past and never have they contacted me, even though I included an unfiltered e-mail address.

      Currently I'm having (complete
      • "As far as I know, they're both the same company and they both don't care about doing honest business at all."

        Ebay bought paypal years ago, so you are right. Regulators in quite a few states are very unhappy with paypal and ebay, and have, under the threat of regulating their operations if they don't cooperate, entered into "voluntary consent agreements". You might want to check with your local attorney general's office - they probably have someone who is working the ebay/paypal file.

        Hope this helps.

    • Don't be cocky. You know what they mean when they say that.
      • "What they meant" is only relevant if you're a psychic. I can only go by what is written down. A judge would also tend to rule that a specific writing is more relevant than some vague "what we really meant." Ask SCO, who's latest "what we really mean" got bumped by the judge.
  • Can Google Checkout be used as a "tip jar" the same way that some people use PayPal?
  • Perhaps.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by malkavian (9512) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:16AM (#16037579) Homepage
    Pay Pay haven't thought things through clearly. From the article, they broke the AUP by having donations for software that can "run software on systems other than it was purchased for".
    Well, I bought a few games ages ago to run on my PC. Guess what. I'm running them on my PC still. ScummVM just means the games carry on working despite me upgrading the OS a little.
    So, Pay Pal would like to prevent people making my upgrade path more comfortable and simple? For shame!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2006, @09:18AM (#16037585)
    PayPal is not a bank. They can practically freeze your account (and money) indefinitely and no regulation can stop them from doing so.

    Just go to http://www.paypalsucks.com/ [paypalsucks.com] and see how often they've done that in the past.

    I really wish Sourceforge (which is also owned by OSTG like Slashdot) would stop supporting PayPal and choose a more reliable service to handle project donations

    Don't trust your money to PayPal. All regulations that keep regular banks from just stealing from you do not apply for PayPal.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      PayPal is not a bank.

      I thought PayPal *was* legally a bank.

      -b.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Nope, which is why they can freeze your account and keep all your money for any (or no) reason at any time. If Paypal were registered as a bank, they'd have to follow all the regulations, which might cut into their profits.
    • Someone should start an SF project for that, and then people could donate to it to support it and... oh wait... doh.
  • While it is their right to deny anyone for any reason, this stuff is stupid and only drives away business. Same goes for Ebay with the stuff they 'ban' from auction.
  • Email to support (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dear xxxxx,

    Thank you for contacting PayPal.

    We are sorry you are disappointed.

    Sincerely,
    PayPal, Acceptable Use Policy Department
    PayPal, an eBay Company

    Original Message Follows:

    http://forums.scummvm.org/viewtopic.php?p=12891 [scummvm.org]
    http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/09/04/1227227.s html [slashdot.org]

    that just sucks, I will never ever use paypal again, unless you take
    that back!
  • Funny that... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Craig Maloney (1104) * on Monday September 04 2006, @10:06AM (#16037820) Homepage
    It also allows one to play regular, licensed copies of the games as well.

    The horror!
  • I mean what the FUCK business of theirs is it if money goes to support homebrew software or emulation?

    That shit is LEGAL! LEGAL GODDAMNIT! Those people don't distribute roms.

    When you're a fucking monopoly on internet transactions, you don't fucking abuse your power. You do what the law requires you to do AND THAT's IT! God forbid they should spend their energies making sure honest sellers don't get screwed by people who hacked accounts.

    Goddamned cocksuckers.

    • by Ndr_Amigo (533266) on Monday September 04 2006, @12:39PM (#16038754)
      I didn't expect this to hit Slashdot, so we were a bit unprepared for the amount of feedback :) But yeah, its all legal and above board. A project like ScummVM isn't really something anyone would expect Paypal to take issue with :) For those that like reading about lost causes, heres our (denied) appeal [scummvm.org] (including Paypals initial complaint and the response to our appeal).
  • by adolfojp (730818) on Monday September 04 2006, @12:00PM (#16038537) Homepage
    Dear PayPal

    Oh yeah! You fight like a cow!

    Love
    Your friends at ScummVM
  • Very Few Options (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kagato (116051) on Monday September 04 2006, @12:32PM (#16038705) Homepage
    I feel bad for the guys. The problem they are going to run into is that PayPal, for all that is evil about them, does one this really well. Running donation payment processing.

    While they can look for alternitive payment systems, they will run into the issue that Donation systems have extremely high fraud rates. Why? Because donations have very little anti-fraud proceedures. So they are a megnet for people who want to test stolen credit card numbers out on. Most merchant solutions will shut you down if you hit 1-2% fraud against all your transaction rate. Since PayPal was both an aquiring bank, and payment processor, they were able to side step a lot of that. As well as set up a lot of anti-fraud stuff that kicked in before the merchant even noticed.
    • Re:Quick (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ruff_ilb (769396) on Monday September 04 2006, @09:43AM (#16037697) Homepage
      More true than you'd know, actually. Using the google suite of checkout (which, afaik, can be used for donations) and adsense can completely replace HTML for these people. Heck, they're even getting more bang for the donation buck if they use the google service.

      PayPal needs to realize that they're no longer the only service avaiable - instead of instituting a boycott based on their personal morality, they're simply driving people to a competing service.

      I would think that this also opens up an entirely new can of worms - although I'm sure that paypal has the right to do whatever the hell they want short of taking all your cash, if they keep making moves like this, THEY may end up liable for what their service is used for. They can't really have it both ways - either they're a common, undescriminating service, or they're suddenly accountable for everyone.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        "although I'm sure that paypal has the right to do whatever the hell they want short of taking all your cash"

        Actually, Paypal can take all your cash too [paypalsucks.com]. I was going to use them for my[shameless plug] locals-only dating site [centralkydating.com] but upon seeing how freakin' limiting they are and how quickly/easily they can deem a site to be "adult content" no matter how G-rated it actually is, I went with other options, especially since I was considering branching out into more adult-oriented content eventually. Google wasn't

    • Most large organizations accept electronic fund transfers. I pay all my bills online (apartment, car, electric, cable, dsl, and college loans (i have 4)) and only one of my college loans doesn't accept the transfer electronically. That one is mailed as a check instead.