>>40737756Anon wouldn't receive legal ramifications, and this article supports that. It would be the game shop that sold it, and they would only find out if anon is retarded enough to put his face and name to the leak.
>>40737755A EULA can't say you can't play or release information about a game early if you bought it in most countries. Once you buy a game in most countries, you own it. It's a legal right, and EULAs cannot take rights away from you. EULAs may include wording that states you waive your right to do things, but EULAs are not contractually binding. It's just an agreement the customer technically "signs" which allows a company to use scare tactics to get what they want, take you to court for things EULAs CAN legally bind you to, or make you think you don't have the right to do something when you still do.
For example, if a EULA terms "You cannot copy and sell this product to someone else", then that is legally binding. If it then says "You cannot sell the physical copy of this game to someone else." that isn't legally binding. Both things are allowed to be on a EULA, but the last thing would be thrown out if brought to a court.
