http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/judges-ruling-that-wow-bot-violates-dmca-is-troubling.ars Good job Blizzard? I dont think so. Look, I understand why Blizz arent happy. But why dont Blizz ask themselves a few questions about WoW. Why do people buy levelled characters, pay for levelling services or bot software? Because people are lazy, but also because levelling is sh1t boring and time wasting. Also, for anyone with a reasonable income, its actually cheaper to pay for someone else to level your character if your hourly wage is greater than the power levelling service cost. Basically, people time is more valuable then wasting it levelling from 1 to 80. Why did Blizz make Character transfers between accounts available? That just enables people to glider-level and sell characters with less cost. It allows a current player to buy a new character into his current account. He doesnt need to maintain two subs. And Blizz charge a fee for the transfer. So they further enable character selling, they cash in on it, then they turn around and say oh no, botting is bad. What a load of sh1t. And what does it matter if people bot. Does it affect your end-game? No. Does it ruin your raiding? No. In fact it probably helps, because your guild can just buy a cheap level 80 healer rather than live through the horror of levelling one. And hell, if you're levelling along, barely staying awake from boredom, and you see an enemy player botting, it atleast gives you an easy "pvp" kill. Ask yourself this. If levelling from 1 to 80 was actually fun, how many people would buy/use botting software? How many people would buy characters? If MMOs were less timesink, more timefun. Instead of preventing botting, they should look at removing the reasons why people bot. Or perhaps thats just too hard.
You dont like the game so its ok to cheat, break the law or whatever it takes to get around the rules? You are part of the problem and i too like many others are glad bizzard came out on top of this. Maybe someday someone will make a game where you start at level cap with epic gear and 10,000 in gold. Then maybe you would like that game? Most likely not as you would have to click your mouse or push a key.
Dude not being funny but i have a full time job and i like going to the gym and clubbing and like playing mmos. But what i will not do is farm for fu*king hours on end to pay a repair bill for you pulling a mob in naxx. Now i dont give a flying duck if you think iam cheating but wow is a game and i play it how i want to play it. I have enough shit in real life to follow let alone follow a game company law. Yes i buy gold to pay for repair bills and flasks so i dont have to farm for hours. Now if i knew my account would not get banned for botting i would do it to pay for my flasks and repair bill. Nuff said i play my way.
As long as you are prepared to take the consequenses, should Blizzard one day choose to punish you, then by all means do what you want.
Just be sure not to claim that is was not your fault afterwards.
This ruling says that you cannot modify a piece of sofware at all. This ruling would make everything from countertstrike/HL mods to simply doing something I did just a few days ago: I deleted a file on a messenger program I'm using so every time I got a message I wouldnt get the annoying sound effect played in my ear, because the devs were too stupid/lazy to put an option in to turn it off. All of these things would be illegal. Almost everyone who has posted in this thread is guilty of using such programs in the past, I can virtually guarantee it. This is like buying a car and then painting it a color they do not offer at the car company, and then having them confiscate the car because they didn't like the color your painted it. It really is. The abiity to do what you want with what you own is as the most fundamental consumer right there is.
Game companies can alter their EULA to allow MODs. That's not a problem, so you won't be doing anything illegal. Game developers will actually encourage MODing, if they're smart. But expect push back from those same game developers if you try to implement a 'child killer' mod or a 'child porn' mod. They may not approve, and thus you'd be held accountable -- likely just a Cease and Desist order.
As for 'fundamental consumer rights' you have to look at the context. Yes you own the car in your example, and you can do with it what you want -- barring any violation of saftey and transportation laws. However, from what I'm reading, your analogy is flawed because Blizzard is arguing that their software is licsensed...not sold. In this case, a better analogy would be you leasing a car from a dealership. You are not free to do what ever you want with a leased car; you don't have the same flexibility you'd have if you bought the same car. You can't repaint a leased car, or attach a spoiler, or rip out the engine and replace it with a suped-up version. Blizzard is arguing that, in effect, you're leasing the software from them.
So there's no 'doom and gloom' for fundamental consumer rights here.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Game companies can alter their EULA to allow MODs. That's not a problem, so you won't be doing anything illegal. Game developers will actually encourage MODing, if they're smart. But expect push back from those same game developers if you try to implement a 'child killer' mod or a 'child porn' mod. They may not approve, and thus you'd be held accountable -- likely just a Cease and Desist order. As for 'fundamental consumer rights' you have to look at the context. Yes you own the car in your example, and you can do with it what you want -- barring any violation of saftey and transportation laws. However, from what I'm reading, your analogy is flawed because Blizzard is arguing that their software is licsensed...not sold. In this case, a better analogy would be you leasing a car from a dealership. You are not free to do what ever you want with a leased car; you don't have the same flexibility you'd have if you bought the same car. You can't repaint a leased car, or attach a spoiler, or rip out the engine and replace it with a suped-up version. Blizzard is arguing that, in effect, you're leasing the software from them. So there's no 'doom and gloom' for fundamental consumer rights here.
That's the problem. Blizzard claims that you don't actually purchase the game, you purchase the right to play the game. This is Orwelian double-speak, at best. You go look at the box of your WOW case and tell me where it says " you are not purchasing this game, only the right to play it". What's even more fun is when you log in, and they tell you that you not only do not own it, you can be denied your "right to play it" for no reason whatsoever. So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that. They probably wouldn't do that, sure, but it demonstrates the vast abuse of consumers this nonsensical logic produces when fraud is legally sactioned. It is indeed all doom and gloom for consumer rights, you just don't understand legal precedent.
Reading this thread makes me want to bang my head on my desk. Those who aren't learned in the law should not comment on it...
1. Judges are expert in law, as well as the finer things in life, such as good wine and the theatre. However they don't know much else, that's why barristers/attorneys call expert witnesses to give evidence, so don't criticise the judge's decision unless no expert witnesses were called, everything is taken into account and a judge makes a decision on what evidence is admitted before him. Blame MDY's shitty lawyers if they failed to get good witnesses.
2. Judges are human, and humans make mistakes. The beauty of precedent, appeal and court hierarchy is that previous decisions can be overruled by a more senior court. This decision will likely not last.
3. This decision is not binding in any other country, so if MDY wanted to outsource to Bangladesh at an operating cost of 20 pence a day, it would all be peachy.
4. Implying such a term (look this up..) that would mean a party is breaching copyright by breaching a warranty or condition is preposterous. Copyright is outside the doctrine of privity of contract.
5. Silence (i.e. not telling the buyer the terms of the EULA before he buys it) is not misrepresentation. "Let the buyer beware" is the rule in most legal systems. Besides, you contracted with the retailer to buy the game, you contract with Blizzard to enter the online world and play it. You have made a seperate contract which is not binding on Blizzard.
6. All of Glider's customers are party to a privacy policy and therefore privity of contract gurantees that privelige, unless there are supervening circumstances or a need to expose private parties. That is not of any relevance to Blizzard's action, therefore they cannot ask the court to order MDY to hand over the customer list.
7. Even if a list is released, cross referencing every name with a name on an account correctly will take a lot of time, Blizzard will probably do this and subsequently ban the offender's accounts but you are living in cloud cuckooland if you think they are going to sue any of them
8. Pressing the "I Agree" button on the EULA is sufficient enough to consent to its terms. You then effect the contract by playing the game.
9. "Many countries are signatories to international copyright treaties that involve the US, so this is not necessary an "American thing" at the end of the day." - Bullshit. the Copyright Act is binding only in the USA's legal system. Treaties mean fuckall in terms of common law (precedent).
10. "So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that." - In terms of tbe doctrine of consideration (one of the pillars of a legally binding contract) this would be correct, HOWEVER, in exchange for your money, you are being allowed to use their service, which is consideration. As previously said, you have made two seperate contracts in buying WoW; one is with you and the game distributor, and the other is with Blizzard to pay for your game time, the judge distinguished these two with the literal and non literal elements.
11. Blizzard's idea of licensing the software is novel, and despite its foundations deep rooted in corporate greed, I quite like it and agree. You pay to play, when you stop paying, you can no longer play, similar to a shorthold tenancy on a house. Genius from their legal team, it has to be said..
Any other issues you'd like me to deal with?
Played: SWG, Tibia, WoW, Vanguard, AoC, WAR, LotRO, Guild Wars.
Cheating is Cheating regardless. Yes Bots are a big bissness. Unfortentely lazy so called gammers would rather let the bot grind for gold or loot. then spending the countless hours of doing it themself. To me that is a cheater. Bots also and these are better known as "GOLD TROLLS" go on the trade chat and beg ppl to go to there web site and buy FAKE gold with REAL money. Anyone stupid enough to do this deserve's to get caught. Im my book they are also CHEATERS. If you are a Pally Hack and you think you are all that because you can take on the highest elite out there with ease you are not a real gammer and I laugh in your face it is like "oooooo look at me i am a Pally god you cant touch me." I would not even give you the time of day for that matter. A REAL gammer will grind his way to the top with the help from others who have been playing longer then he or she has and are a real help to "Newbs" because they once were a "Newb" So I appluad Blizz for taking on these CHEATERS!!!!
Game companies can alter their EULA to allow MODs. That's not a problem, so you won't be doing anything illegal. Game developers will actually encourage MODing, if they're smart. But expect push back from those same game developers if you try to implement a 'child killer' mod or a 'child porn' mod. They may not approve, and thus you'd be held accountable -- likely just a Cease and Desist order. As for 'fundamental consumer rights' you have to look at the context. Yes you own the car in your example, and you can do with it what you want -- barring any violation of saftey and transportation laws. However, from what I'm reading, your analogy is flawed because Blizzard is arguing that their software is licsensed...not sold. In this case, a better analogy would be you leasing a car from a dealership. You are not free to do what ever you want with a leased car; you don't have the same flexibility you'd have if you bought the same car. You can't repaint a leased car, or attach a spoiler, or rip out the engine and replace it with a suped-up version. Blizzard is arguing that, in effect, you're leasing the software from them. So there's no 'doom and gloom' for fundamental consumer rights here.
That's the problem. Blizzard claims that you don't actually purchase the game, you purchase the right to play the game. This is Orwelian double-speak, at best. You go look at the box of your WOW case and tell me where it says " you are not purchasing this game, only the right to play it". What's even more fun is when you log in, and they tell you that you not only do not own it, you can be denied your "right to play it" for no reason whatsoever. So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that. They probably wouldn't do that, sure, but it demonstrates the vast abuse of consumers this nonsensical logic produces when fraud is legally sactioned. It is indeed all doom and gloom for consumer rights, you just don't understand legal precedent.
I don't know. I played for the first year without a problem. Bought both expansion packs and played for a few months each time and didn't have a problem. Blizzard never denied me the right to play or anyone I know for that matter. No one in the guild got banned for anything either. If they did suddenly tell me I couldn't play anymore when I did nothing wrong, then I'd stop playing and never buy another BLizzard game again. See, thats how the game works. You don't like the product or the company no one forces you to buy the game, play the game, agree to the EULA or CHEAT for that matter. If Blizzard wanted to stop you from playing, they have the right, just like you have the right to tell them to shove it. Obviously it would be quite stupid for BLizzard to start randomly banning loads of people who did nothing wrong. WHen there is a ban, theres ALWAYS something fishy that went on.
You want to cheat, greif or act like an %$^#&#, go play something like Darkfall where its mostly what the game is all about. You'll be welcomed with open arms=)
Game companies can alter their EULA to allow MODs. That's not a problem, so you won't be doing anything illegal. Game developers will actually encourage MODing, if they're smart. But expect push back from those same game developers if you try to implement a 'child killer' mod or a 'child porn' mod. They may not approve, and thus you'd be held accountable -- likely just a Cease and Desist order. As for 'fundamental consumer rights' you have to look at the context. Yes you own the car in your example, and you can do with it what you want -- barring any violation of saftey and transportation laws. However, from what I'm reading, your analogy is flawed because Blizzard is arguing that their software is licsensed...not sold. In this case, a better analogy would be you leasing a car from a dealership. You are not free to do what ever you want with a leased car; you don't have the same flexibility you'd have if you bought the same car. You can't repaint a leased car, or attach a spoiler, or rip out the engine and replace it with a suped-up version. Blizzard is arguing that, in effect, you're leasing the software from them. So there's no 'doom and gloom' for fundamental consumer rights here.
That's the problem. Blizzard claims that you don't actually purchase the game, you purchase the right to play the game. This is Orwelian double-speak, at best. You go look at the box of your WOW case and tell me where it says " you are not purchasing this game, only the right to play it". What's even more fun is when you log in, and they tell you that you not only do not own it, you can be denied your "right to play it" for no reason whatsoever. So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that. They probably wouldn't do that, sure, but it demonstrates the vast abuse of consumers this nonsensical logic produces when fraud is legally sactioned. It is indeed all doom and gloom for consumer rights, you just don't understand legal precedent.
However, every software license since the advent of the commercial computer says that you are not purchasing the game but the right to play it. It's not like it is something Blizzard just came up on their own. Heck, you do not actually own the contents of a book, just the right to read it and do whatever you want with the paper.
As far as they banning you, that is pretty much the right of any service business. Your gym can ban you from coming in, a restaurant can deny you service. As long as the discrimination is not prohibited by law, a company can refuse to do business with you on any grounds.
Reading this thread makes me want to bang my head on my desk. Those who aren't learned in the law should not comment on it... 1. Judges are expert in law, as well as the finer things in life, such as good wine and the theatre. However they don't know much else, that's why barristers/attorneys call expert witnesses to give evidence, so don't criticise the judge's decision unless no expert witnesses were called, everything is taken into account and a judge makes a decision on what evidence is admitted before him. Blame MDY's shitty lawyers if they failed to get good witnesses. 2. Judges are human, and humans make mistakes. The beauty of precedent, appeal and court hierarchy is that previous decisions can be overruled by a more senior court. This decision will likely not last. 3. This decision is not binding in any other country, so if MDY wanted to outsource to Bangladesh at an operating cost of 20 pence a day, it would all be peachy. 4. Implying such a term (look this up..) that would mean a party is breaching copyright by breaching a warranty or condition is preposterous. Copyright is outside the doctrine of privity of contract. 5. Silence (i.e. not telling the buyer the terms of the EULA before he buys it) is not misrepresentation. "Let the buyer beware" is the rule in most legal systems. Besides, you contracted with the retailer to buy the game, you contract with Blizzard to enter the online world and play it. You have made a seperate contract which is not binding on Blizzard. 6. All of Glider's customers are party to a privacy policy and therefore privity of contract gurantees that privelige, unless there are supervening circumstances or a need to expose private parties. That is not of any relevance to Blizzard's action, therefore they cannot ask the court to order MDY to hand over the customer list. 7. Even if a list is released, cross referencing every name with a name on an account correctly will take a lot of time, Blizzard will probably do this and subsequently ban the offender's accounts but you are living in cloud cuckooland if you think they are going to sue any of them 8. Pressing the "I Agree" button on the EULA is sufficient enough to consent to its terms. You then effect the contract by playing the game. 9. "Many countries are signatories to international copyright treaties that involve the US, so this is not necessary an "American thing" at the end of the day." - Bullshit. the Copyright Act is binding only in the USA's legal system. Treaties mean fuckall in terms of common law (precedent). 10. "So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that." - In terms of tbe doctrine of consideration (one of the pillars of a legally binding contract) this would be correct, HOWEVER, in exchange for your money, you are being allowed to use their service, which is consideration. As previously said, you have made two seperate contracts in buying WoW; one is with you and the game distributor, and the other is with Blizzard to pay for your game time, the judge distinguished these two with the literal and non literal elements. 11. Blizzard's idea of licensing the software is novel, and despite its foundations deep rooted in corporate greed, I quite like it and agree. You pay to play, when you stop paying, you can no longer play, similar to a shorthold tenancy on a house. Genius from their legal team, it has to be said.. Any other issues you'd like me to deal with?
jamizzle89 first I disagree with your statement that "Those who aren't learned in the law should not comment on it..." at this point i am CALLING out your credentials. Because basically you just called the great majority of us you posted on this thread STUPID and to that (I usually follow with a SIR or MADAM but in your case I will make a exception.) I do find your comment insulting to say the least now I am not going to dissect your TOP 10 ten or eh make that 11 here. EXCEPT for number 6 drum roll pls.....
"6. All of Glider's customers are party to a privacy policy and therefore privity of contract gurantees that privelige, unless there are supervening circumstances or a need to expose private parties. That is not of any relevance to Blizzard's action, therefore they cannot ask the court to order MDY to hand over the customer list."
LMAO..... OK let me recompose myself. and I will let BLIZZARD rebute this statement with ease here is there words wich I will give you the benifit of doubt that you did not read or missed in THERE EULA it reads.....
"Welcome to Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.’s ("Blizzard") "World of Warcraft®" (the "Game"). The Game includes two components: (a) the software program along with any accompanying materials or documentation (collectively, the "Game Client"), and (b) Blizzard’s proprietary World of Warcraft online service (the "Service"). Your use of the Service is subject to the Terms of Use and the End User License Agreement (the "EULA"), incorporated herein by this reference, both of which you must accept before you can use the Game Client or the Service.
Grant of a Limited License to Use the Service
Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with the Terms of Use agreement, you may use the Service solely for your own non-commercial entertainment purposes by accessing it with an authorized, unmodified Game Client. You may not use the Service for any other purpose, or in connection with any other software.
Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or the Game Client in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights in and to the Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
A. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience;
B. exploit the Game or any of its parts, including without limitation the Service, for any commercial purpose, including without limitation (a) use at a cyber cafe, computer gaming center or any other location-based site without the express written consent of Blizzard; (b) for gathering in-game currency, items or resources for sale outside the Game; or (c) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling;"
I was going to HIGHLIGHT for you but since you CLAIM to be a student of the law I am sure you can read for yourself after all any FORTH grader can understand this so see for your self that BLIZZARD is right and you are wrong. There for I will be overjoyed with GLEE if or when a judge demands that glider gives all the names to BLIZZARD. Why I say? lol look at NAPSTER
POINT , GAME, MATCH!!!
P.s for a learned student of the law you should of use a spell chk lol
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/judges-ruling-that-wow-bot-violates-dmca-is-troubling.ars Good job Blizzard? I dont think so. Look, I understand why Blizz arent happy. But why dont Blizz ask themselves a few questions about WoW. Why do people buy levelled characters, pay for levelling services or bot software? Because people are lazy, but also because levelling is sh1t boring and time wasting. Also, for anyone with a reasonable income, its actually cheaper to pay for someone else to level your character if your hourly wage is greater than the power levelling service cost. Basically, people time is more valuable then wasting it levelling from 1 to 80. Why did Blizz make Character transfers between accounts available? That just enables people to glider-level and sell characters with less cost. It allows a current player to buy a new character into his current account. He doesnt need to maintain two subs. And Blizz charge a fee for the transfer. So they further enable character selling, they cash in on it, then they turn around and say oh no, botting is bad. What a load of sh1t. And what does it matter if people bot. Does it affect your end-game? No. Does it ruin your raiding? No. In fact it probably helps, because your guild can just buy a cheap level 80 healer rather than live through the horror of levelling one. And hell, if you're levelling along, barely staying awake from boredom, and you see an enemy player botting, it atleast gives you an easy "pvp" kill. Ask yourself this. If levelling from 1 to 80 was actually fun, how many people would buy/use botting software? How many people would buy characters? If MMOs were less timesink, more timefun. Instead of preventing botting, they should look at removing the reasons why people bot. Or perhaps thats just too hard.
Its not that leveling isnt fun at all buddy just people in general are lazy and this was the solution to that laziness
Reading this thread makes me want to bang my head on my desk. Those who aren't learned in the law should not comment on it... 1. Judges are expert in law, as well as the finer things in life, such as good wine and the theatre. However they don't know much else, that's why barristers/attorneys call expert witnesses to give evidence, so don't criticise the judge's decision unless no expert witnesses were called, everything is taken into account and a judge makes a decision on what evidence is admitted before him. Blame MDY's shitty lawyers if they failed to get good witnesses. While I agree with this at face value, there is much that we don't know about in this case, especially regarding the financial means at the disposal of the defendant. Whatever it was, it probably wasn't nowhere near Blizzard's clout. Still, two legal experts from Public Knowledge did provide an amicus brief in favour of MDY last year. I'm assuming that as a public interest group specializing in those issues, they must have known something about copyright. Also a few other things that need reminding: Good lawyers are nothing if the judge is shitty or prejudiced (and though I'm not a lawyer there are a few cases coming to mind) or if the law itself is shitty. And the US copyright laws, well, they're a sewer full of fun. 2. Judges are human, and humans make mistakes. The beauty of precedent, appeal and court hierarchy is that previous decisions can be overruled by a more senior court. This decision will likely not last. Here is a continuation of the first point: Legal costs tend to be prohibitive. That explains why you have SLAPP's which have nothing to do with defamation or lost business or anything of that sort. It's about censorship. If it were all about the law, you would never even hear of them, because there is no legal ground whatsoever in the vast majority of those cases. Instead, the sole purpose of a SLAPP is to use the prospect of a lawsuit as a sword of Damocles to keep people silent -- simply because defending yourself in court is going to be overwhelmingly expensive, even though you're almost certain of victory. Also, I don't think I need to tell you of certain groups or companies with deep pockets having an "appeal twitch" every time there is a court decision against them. Sometimes it's not even about justice, it's about attrition. Sure, the little guy might win, but at what cost? Also, I can include in this part the Worlds.com patent trolling against NCSoft (and now apparently Blizzard and everybody else). Maybe Worlds.com does have a claim; I'm not an expert in early MMO's, and the US patent office would probably register scissors and hammers if it were left to them. For the benefit of readers who might not know, in the case of a genuine patent troll, the plaintiff usually produces nothing itself, and wants to make its money by leeching companies that use the systems on which they claim a patent. The strategy isn't so much to win, but to place other companies before the prospect of significant legal costs to force them to settle. There's a reason Worlds.com went after NCSoft first: With the failure of Tabula Rasa, it's seen as a vulnerable major in the industry. But since they're also intent on going against Blizzard, that promises to be fun. What Blizzard decides to do in that case -- litigate or settle -- will determine whether it deserves to be seen as a knight in shining armour, or yet another selfish company thereby earning one additional count of ruining the MMO field by making sure that only the majors get to make MMO's without Worlds.com trampling on them. 3. This decision is not binding in any other country, so if MDY wanted to outsource to Bangladesh at an operating cost of 20 pence a day, it would all be peachy. Exactly. And that would be fun to see in a sadistic sort of way. 4. Implying such a term (look this up..) that would mean a party is breaching copyright by breaching a warranty or condition is preposterous. Copyright is outside the doctrine of privity of contract. Agreed, though there can be a grey zone in the middle in some cases. Not in this case, though. 5. Silence (i.e. not telling the buyer the terms of the EULA before he buys it) is not misrepresentation. "Let the buyer beware" is the rule in most legal systems. Besides, you contracted with the retailer to buy the game, you contract with Blizzard to enter the online world and play it. You have made a seperate contract which is not binding on Blizzard. I agree, it is not misrepresentation. However, there are a few points I want to bring up. The first is that as far as the EULA is concerned, Blizzard is in the clear, because it's already indicated on the box that there is a EULA, and that you can read it online at the URL indicated. On my battle chest edition, it's printed under the box, in a white square next to the copyright notice. So yeah, it's there, like that small print in car commercials. (Except that in the case of WoW I'm lenient because if you're looking at buying an MMO, it's implied you have an internet connection. I'd be far less patient if it involved goods for which no internet access is required -- what happens if you don't have the Internet?) What the scenario above isn't, however, is practical. Do you seriously imagine the average buyer picking up a copy of the box, and think "hmm, I'd rather read this EULA first and then come back later to buy the box if I agree"? No, the average buyer will get the box, install the game, read the EULA (yeah, right), and if they don't agree will just ret... Oh wait, that's true. You can't return it once the package is opened, unless it is defective (and then only exchanged for a box of the same title). As far as Canada is concerned, there does not seem to be a law against such returns, but it's a store policy so widespread that there might as well be one. I remember one case a few years ago, where I bought by mistake a copy of SimCity 3K for Mac instead of Windows, and I noticed just before opening the box. I returned it for an exchange, but you can bet the vendor looked carefully at all the seals before accepting it. And it makes sense. It's not a case of an open box of cookies of which you don't like the taste or underwear that doesn't fit, but the store owners are not only scared of being involved in a case of copyright violation (so easy for the consumer to make a copy then return the original), but they know themselves that they couldn't return opened copies in working order to the manufacturer. So while in theory (legally speaking) you have two separate contracts, in practice it's pretty much the same thing if you decide against playing it because of Blizzard's EULA, and that this has an impact on the contract with the vendor (in this case, lack of an option to return it). So you're free to decline the EULA -- what do you do now? Well, since you can't return it, you can turn the CD's into coasters, I guess... 6. All of Glider's customers are party to a privacy policy and therefore privity of contract gurantees that privelige, unless there are supervening circumstances or a need to expose private parties. That is not of any relevance to Blizzard's action, therefore they cannot ask the court to order MDY to hand over the customer list. Are we talking about the contract between Glider and its users here? If so, Blizzard isn't a party to said contract and is itself not bound by it. Blizzard isn't bound to respect any promise of privacy made by Glider to its customers. Besides, we've seen plenty of evidence already of copyright holders (MPAA, RIAA) putting pressure on ISP's to turn over the IP addresses of people suspected of illegal uploads and (in the case of the US) downloads. ISP's disclosing such information without a court order would be violating any privacy policy they made with their customers, unless they made exceptions for instances such as those in the first place (and around here the major ISP's also happen to belong to companies that produce loads of content, so it's pretty much sending the information from one branch to the other). But it has been heard of, companies going to court to force ISP's to turn over the lists of people who accessed such and such copyrighted material. Blizzard, by playing the copyright card, could be bucking for the same thing with Glider's list -- even easier for them to do because unlike ISP's Glider can't claim to be just a carrier. 7. Even if a list is released, cross referencing every name with a name on an account correctly will take a lot of time, Blizzard will probably do this and subsequently ban the offender's accounts but you are living in cloud cuckooland if you think they are going to sue any of them A waste of time for Blizzard, to be sure. But I wouldn't rule out other companies using the Blizzard precedent (if it holds up) to pursue a similar line of action. 8. Pressing the "I Agree" button on the EULA is sufficient enough to consent to its terms. You then effect the contract by playing the game. Agreed, though I would bring in the caveat I mentioned above. Legally, that's ironclad. Practically, well that's different. 9. "Many countries are signatories to international copyright treaties that involve the US, so this is not necessary an "American thing" at the end of the day." - Bullshit. the Copyright Act is binding only in the USA's legal system. Treaties mean fuckall in terms of common law (precedent). Well, treaties do mean something. I don't think that the rest of the world would be much pleased if the US returned to the 19th-century stance of "if a work isn't released here first", there's no copyright. (A classic example is The Pirates of Penzance, performed in New York and England almost simultaneously to secure copyright in both countries.) Oh, they're free to ignore every treaty they've ratified, but they'd better be ready for an international backlash against American works if they actually do it. The key copyright treaty in the case of WoW would have to be the WIPO treaty (WCT) in this case. Yet if you look at the list of countries which ratified it, apart from the US, Japan (usually close to the US on such matters), Australia and Belgium, most of the so-called Western World has yet to ratify it ("sign" means pretty much "nice thing you've got there", but ratifying it means adhering to it -- in other words, "signing" is meaningless in policy terms). Why is that? Because it's seen pretty much as a transparent attempt by the US and its software industry (among others) to exert greater control over copyright in those fields. The DMCA is the brainchild of that treaty, but it's probably the most radical copyright law on the planet, and the results of its application always offer reasons for other countries to stay well clear ot it. 10. "So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that." - In terms of tbe doctrine of consideration (one of the pillars of a legally binding contract) this would be correct, HOWEVER, in exchange for your money, you are being allowed to use their service, which is consideration. As previously said, you have made two seperate contracts in buying WoW; one is with you and the game distributor, and the other is with Blizzard to pay for your game time, the judge distinguished these two with the literal and non literal elements. 11. Blizzard's idea of licensing the software is novel, and despite its foundations deep rooted in corporate greed, I quite like it and agree. You pay to play, when you stop paying, you can no longer play, similar to a shorthold tenancy on a house. Genius from their legal team, it has to be said.. Yeah, and I always regarded it as such anyway. The problem is that it's bound to lead to something similar to the Spore controversy. In the case of an MMO, it's a natural thing to do because of the monthly cost (unless you go with a Guild Wars model). But I remember failed ideas like Spore or the limited-replay DVD gizmo a few years back that just reminds me of how awry that could go. Any other issues you'd like me to deal with?
jamizzle89 I just think you can not deal with the fact that I someone who may not be as SCHOOLED as you did exactly that took you to SCHOOL and left you there. I will give you one word NAPSTER!!!!! This whole thing has to do with COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!! nothing more nothing less. I dont need to DEAL with it because I am the one who DEALT it. Oh too bad so sad!!!
Oh bye the way here are a few links on napster lets see if MR. SCHOOL can find the similarty between GLIDER and NAPSTER I know I can and I am sure 95% of those who posted on this thread with or with out SCHOLLING can see the similarity between the two so with out further to adue here are your links:
OH and in case you forgot the outcome NAPSTER LOST!!! just like GLIDER LOST!!! and guess what PRIVATE names were handed over to A & M Records just like GLIDER will have to hand over names to BLIZZ like I mention before....
POINT , SET , MATCH!!!
OH and after this post I will refuse to post or reply to any of YOUR that being jamizzle89 posts on this thread for I WILL NOT TROLL.
You on the other hand heehee I do like the attemp of SCHOOL TROLLS
Any game in which people resort to botting has failed somewhere in the design stage.
I don't really know if this is true or not. Even in consoles there are methods people cheat be it with special codes (Anyone remember Contra? ^ ^ v v < > < > b a select start?) I think it is just people's nature to compete that lead some people to cheat to get a "heads up". It will happen no matter how trivial they make these games. The only issue is while they keep trying to make games easier and easier because of people requesting this (This goes back to human nature of everyone wanting to be the best) pretty soon no challenge is left and people become bored of the game and quit.
Even though you would think with all the request to make things easier and easier that nobody wants a challenge in their games this is not true. People enjoy a challenge but human nature to strive to find anyway to be the best leads to making games easier. People fail to realize though while doing this they are actually removing the thing they wanted in the first place .. and that was to succeed at something that is challenging.
It is the classic envy scenario or getting something you thought you wanted so bad ..and finding out you didn't want it after all.
Comments
You dont like the game so its ok to cheat, break the law or whatever it takes to get around the rules? You are part of the problem and i too like many others are glad bizzard came out on top of this. Maybe someday someone will make a game where you start at level cap with epic gear and 10,000 in gold. Then maybe you would like that game? Most likely not as you would have to click your mouse or push a key.
Dude not being funny but i have a full time job and i like going to the gym and clubbing and like playing mmos. But what i will not do is farm for fu*king hours on end to pay a repair bill for you pulling a mob in naxx. Now i dont give a flying duck if you think iam cheating but wow is a game and i play it how i want to play it. I have enough shit in real life to follow let alone follow a game company law. Yes i buy gold to pay for repair bills and flasks so i dont have to farm for hours. Now if i knew my account would not get banned for botting i would do it to pay for my flasks and repair bill. Nuff said i play my way.
As long as you are prepared to take the consequenses, should Blizzard one day choose to punish you, then by all means do what you want.
Just be sure not to claim that is was not your fault afterwards.
Game companies can alter their EULA to allow MODs. That's not a problem, so you won't be doing anything illegal. Game developers will actually encourage MODing, if they're smart. But expect push back from those same game developers if you try to implement a 'child killer' mod or a 'child porn' mod. They may not approve, and thus you'd be held accountable -- likely just a Cease and Desist order.
As for 'fundamental consumer rights' you have to look at the context. Yes you own the car in your example, and you can do with it what you want -- barring any violation of saftey and transportation laws. However, from what I'm reading, your analogy is flawed because Blizzard is arguing that their software is licsensed...not sold. In this case, a better analogy would be you leasing a car from a dealership. You are not free to do what ever you want with a leased car; you don't have the same flexibility you'd have if you bought the same car. You can't repaint a leased car, or attach a spoiler, or rip out the engine and replace it with a suped-up version. Blizzard is arguing that, in effect, you're leasing the software from them.
So there's no 'doom and gloom' for fundamental consumer rights here.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
That's the problem. Blizzard claims that you don't actually purchase the game, you purchase the right to play the game. This is Orwelian double-speak, at best. You go look at the box of your WOW case and tell me where it says " you are not purchasing this game, only the right to play it". What's even more fun is when you log in, and they tell you that you not only do not own it, you can be denied your "right to play it" for no reason whatsoever. So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that. They probably wouldn't do that, sure, but it demonstrates the vast abuse of consumers this nonsensical logic produces when fraud is legally sactioned. It is indeed all doom and gloom for consumer rights, you just don't understand legal precedent.
Reading this thread makes me want to bang my head on my desk. Those who aren't learned in the law should not comment on it...
1. Judges are expert in law, as well as the finer things in life, such as good wine and the theatre. However they don't know much else, that's why barristers/attorneys call expert witnesses to give evidence, so don't criticise the judge's decision unless no expert witnesses were called, everything is taken into account and a judge makes a decision on what evidence is admitted before him. Blame MDY's shitty lawyers if they failed to get good witnesses.
2. Judges are human, and humans make mistakes. The beauty of precedent, appeal and court hierarchy is that previous decisions can be overruled by a more senior court. This decision will likely not last.
3. This decision is not binding in any other country, so if MDY wanted to outsource to Bangladesh at an operating cost of 20 pence a day, it would all be peachy.
4. Implying such a term (look this up..) that would mean a party is breaching copyright by breaching a warranty or condition is preposterous. Copyright is outside the doctrine of privity of contract.
5. Silence (i.e. not telling the buyer the terms of the EULA before he buys it) is not misrepresentation. "Let the buyer beware" is the rule in most legal systems. Besides, you contracted with the retailer to buy the game, you contract with Blizzard to enter the online world and play it. You have made a seperate contract which is not binding on Blizzard.
6. All of Glider's customers are party to a privacy policy and therefore privity of contract gurantees that privelige, unless there are supervening circumstances or a need to expose private parties. That is not of any relevance to Blizzard's action, therefore they cannot ask the court to order MDY to hand over the customer list.
7. Even if a list is released, cross referencing every name with a name on an account correctly will take a lot of time, Blizzard will probably do this and subsequently ban the offender's accounts but you are living in cloud cuckooland if you think they are going to sue any of them
8. Pressing the "I Agree" button on the EULA is sufficient enough to consent to its terms. You then effect the contract by playing the game.
9. "Many countries are signatories to international copyright treaties that involve the US, so this is not necessary an "American thing" at the end of the day." - Bullshit. the Copyright Act is binding only in the USA's legal system. Treaties mean fuckall in terms of common law (precedent).
10. "So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that." - In terms of tbe doctrine of consideration (one of the pillars of a legally binding contract) this would be correct, HOWEVER, in exchange for your money, you are being allowed to use their service, which is consideration. As previously said, you have made two seperate contracts in buying WoW; one is with you and the game distributor, and the other is with Blizzard to pay for your game time, the judge distinguished these two with the literal and non literal elements.
11. Blizzard's idea of licensing the software is novel, and despite its foundations deep rooted in corporate greed, I quite like it and agree. You pay to play, when you stop paying, you can no longer play, similar to a shorthold tenancy on a house. Genius from their legal team, it has to be said..
Any other issues you'd like me to deal with?
Played: SWG, Tibia, WoW, Vanguard, AoC, WAR, LotRO, Guild Wars.
Currently playing: Law Degree, American Football.
What you say?
That's the problem. Blizzard claims that you don't actually purchase the game, you purchase the right to play the game. This is Orwelian double-speak, at best. You go look at the box of your WOW case and tell me where it says " you are not purchasing this game, only the right to play it". What's even more fun is when you log in, and they tell you that you not only do not own it, you can be denied your "right to play it" for no reason whatsoever. So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that. They probably wouldn't do that, sure, but it demonstrates the vast abuse of consumers this nonsensical logic produces when fraud is legally sactioned. It is indeed all doom and gloom for consumer rights, you just don't understand legal precedent.
I don't know. I played for the first year without a problem. Bought both expansion packs and played for a few months each time and didn't have a problem. Blizzard never denied me the right to play or anyone I know for that matter. No one in the guild got banned for anything either. If they did suddenly tell me I couldn't play anymore when I did nothing wrong, then I'd stop playing and never buy another BLizzard game again. See, thats how the game works. You don't like the product or the company no one forces you to buy the game, play the game, agree to the EULA or CHEAT for that matter. If Blizzard wanted to stop you from playing, they have the right, just like you have the right to tell them to shove it. Obviously it would be quite stupid for BLizzard to start randomly banning loads of people who did nothing wrong. WHen there is a ban, theres ALWAYS something fishy that went on.
You want to cheat, greif or act like an %$^#&#, go play something like Darkfall where its mostly what the game is all about. You'll be welcomed with open arms=)
Any game in which people resort to botting has failed somewhere in the design stage.
Remember, it has to be fun to be a game. Grinding is a bedroom activity, and the point is definitely not to do my wife as fast as possible.
That's the problem. Blizzard claims that you don't actually purchase the game, you purchase the right to play the game. This is Orwelian double-speak, at best. You go look at the box of your WOW case and tell me where it says " you are not purchasing this game, only the right to play it". What's even more fun is when you log in, and they tell you that you not only do not own it, you can be denied your "right to play it" for no reason whatsoever. So, in fact, you could be just handing someone money and getting absolutely nothing in return is the company decided to do that. They probably wouldn't do that, sure, but it demonstrates the vast abuse of consumers this nonsensical logic produces when fraud is legally sactioned. It is indeed all doom and gloom for consumer rights, you just don't understand legal precedent.
However, every software license since the advent of the commercial computer says that you are not purchasing the game but the right to play it. It's not like it is something Blizzard just came up on their own. Heck, you do not actually own the contents of a book, just the right to read it and do whatever you want with the paper.
As far as they banning you, that is pretty much the right of any service business. Your gym can ban you from coming in, a restaurant can deny you service. As long as the discrimination is not prohibited by law, a company can refuse to do business with you on any grounds.
jamizzle89 first I disagree with your statement that "Those who aren't learned in the law should not comment on it..." at this point i am CALLING out your credentials. Because basically you just called the great majority of us you posted on this thread STUPID and to that (I usually follow with a SIR or MADAM but in your case I will make a exception.) I do find your comment insulting to say the least now I am not going to dissect your TOP 10 ten or eh make that 11 here. EXCEPT for number 6 drum roll pls.....
"6. All of Glider's customers are party to a privacy policy and therefore privity of contract gurantees that privelige, unless there are supervening circumstances or a need to expose private parties. That is not of any relevance to Blizzard's action, therefore they cannot ask the court to order MDY to hand over the customer list."
LMAO..... OK let me recompose myself. and I will let BLIZZARD rebute this statement with ease here is there words wich I will give you the benifit of doubt that you did not read or missed in THERE EULA it reads.....
"Welcome to Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.’s ("Blizzard") "World of Warcraft®" (the "Game"). The Game includes two components: (a) the software program along with any accompanying materials or documentation (collectively, the "Game Client"), and (b) Blizzard’s proprietary World of Warcraft online service (the "Service"). Your use of the Service is subject to the Terms of Use and the End User License Agreement (the "EULA"), incorporated herein by this reference, both of which you must accept before you can use the Game Client or the Service.
Grant of a Limited License to Use the Service
Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with the Terms of Use agreement, you may use the Service solely for your own non-commercial entertainment purposes by accessing it with an authorized, unmodified Game Client. You may not use the Service for any other purpose, or in connection with any other software.
Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or the Game Client in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights in and to the Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
A. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience;
B. exploit the Game or any of its parts, including without limitation the Service, for any commercial purpose, including without limitation (a) use at a cyber cafe, computer gaming center or any other location-based site without the express written consent of Blizzard; (b) for gathering in-game currency, items or resources for sale outside the Game; or (c) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling;"
I was going to HIGHLIGHT for you but since you CLAIM to be a student of the law I am sure you can read for yourself after all any FORTH grader can understand this so see for your self that BLIZZARD is right and you are wrong. There for I will be overjoyed with GLEE if or when a judge demands that glider gives all the names to BLIZZARD. Why I say? lol look at NAPSTER
POINT , GAME, MATCH!!!
P.s for a learned student of the law you should of use a spell chk lol
Its not that leveling isnt fun at all buddy just people in general are lazy and this was the solution to that laziness
I'd crack up if the client list has to be turned over eventually and every Glider user's account gets banned. Justice served!!
jamizzle89 I just think you can not deal with the fact that I someone who may not be as SCHOOLED as you did exactly that took you to SCHOOL and left you there. I will give you one word NAPSTER!!!!! This whole thing has to do with COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!! nothing more nothing less. I dont need to DEAL with it because I am the one who DEALT it. Oh too bad so sad!!!
Oh bye the way here are a few links on napster lets see if MR. SCHOOL can find the similarty between GLIDER and NAPSTER I know I can and I am sure 95% of those who posted on this thread with or with out SCHOLLING can see the similarity between the two so with out further to adue here are your links:
napster copyright infringement.
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/napsteramicus.html
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072204.html
http://www.audiocasefiles.com/acf_cases/9265-a-m-records-inc-v-napster-inc-
OH and in case you forgot the outcome NAPSTER LOST!!! just like GLIDER LOST!!! and guess what PRIVATE names were handed over to A & M Records just like GLIDER will have to hand over names to BLIZZ like I mention before....
POINT , SET , MATCH!!!
OH and after this post I will refuse to post or reply to any of YOUR that being jamizzle89 posts on this thread for I WILL NOT TROLL.
You on the other hand heehee I do like the attemp of SCHOOL TROLLS
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Remember: Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics...
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Remember: Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics...
I LOL that one acualy very funny ty heehee....
I don't really know if this is true or not. Even in consoles there are methods people cheat be it with special codes (Anyone remember Contra? ^ ^ v v < > < > b a select start?) I think it is just people's nature to compete that lead some people to cheat to get a "heads up". It will happen no matter how trivial they make these games. The only issue is while they keep trying to make games easier and easier because of people requesting this (This goes back to human nature of everyone wanting to be the best) pretty soon no challenge is left and people become bored of the game and quit.
Even though you would think with all the request to make things easier and easier that nobody wants a challenge in their games this is not true. People enjoy a challenge but human nature to strive to find anyway to be the best leads to making games easier. People fail to realize though while doing this they are actually removing the thing they wanted in the first place .. and that was to succeed at something that is challenging.
It is the classic envy scenario or getting something you thought you wanted so bad ..and finding out you didn't want it after all.