1296
Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest
(files.catbox.moe)
On today's episode of "This shouldn't be legal"...
Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792
I haven't read the entire agreement, so I don't really know nor do I care to. But I suspect that it would squarely fall under protected speech once the game has gone public and they've "purchased" it.
Early access to a game is not an asset you can "un-receive" just because you purchase your own copy later. Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.
Other creators chimed in and said that they brought up the section in Discord and legal said they'd look into it. To me, this just seems as lazy copy and paste that they were warned about but did nothing about. Now they have a possible PR disaster on their hands unless they take swift action.
PS: Apparently section 2.6 is way worse but it hasn't been shared yet.
This is what I mean by unenforceable.
I see. That's not what "unenforceable" means. Unenforceable refers to a contractual responsibility that a court would never enforce. There are many reasons why a court would chosen to not enforce a contract but none of them are because a defendant doesn't have the means to combat it.
See: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html
Your linked to an article literally starts by asking "What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?" and then goes on to explain this as one of these as "For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law." Basically proving my point.
And I'm universally downvoted, and you're universally upvoted. Lemmy users crack me up.
What exactly do you mean by "protected speech"?
Protected by the law.
Which law?
I ask, because many times people point to the first amendment for things like this, but that doesn't apply here.
The CRFA.
Just like truth in advertising laws exist, some restrictions are rightly placed on free speech in the interest of consumer protection. Imo this case clearly should fall under similar consideration.