Blizzard's view on ebayers

[CplCarrot]

I hear what you say, but personally I think they *may* be in bed together.

My reasoning (but yes, it is a conspiracy theory)

1. Blizzard are aware that Cosmos is not simply a 3rd Party Mod, but a commercial product (albeit free of charge)

2. I find it immensly suspicious that firstly Cosmos appear to have the patches before anyone else (as the updates are available within minutes of the patch both in the US and here) - Gypsymod etc are not given this luxury and are not as quick to react.

3. Thottbot is technically a breach of copyright (maps etc) and also takes data from client systems without (as far as I know) clear notification to the user that it is effectively "spyware".

4. If the above is true regarding ebay - then why take 1 user to the cleaner and allow a company to make money from your product?

Have no doubt about it, whether u like it or not IGE WILL start selling items and attempting to manipulate prices - they have done it with every other MMORPG (except daoc, which had stringent mod controls) and I see no reason why they would hide the ownership of cosmos through a link of 3 companies otherwise.

Prosecuting or stopping IGE from selling goods from the game will be immensly difficult, especially when there is a tree of at least 3 companies to prosecute on the way.

Maybe you are right, I certainly hope so - because this kind of activity sickens me - Also the majority of Cosmos users are blissfully unaware of the filthy company behind it (this is disturbing also). How many people would continue to use Cosmos knowing the full story?

*anyone reading this that agrees with my sentiment, do please drop cosmos and give one of the alternatives a go, they all have the same VALUABLE features - with the loss of a few you really wont miss that much*

All im trying to strive at is :

1 rule for 1 person, 1 rule for all - if a person selling his account is against the TOC then so should a company selling a product be against the TOC - its all blizzards property isnt it?

 

[oblimov]

tbh its probs done this way as taking action against a company would result in a court case which may cost a lot of cash whereas doing it against one wee guy isnt likely to result in a large scale court appearance

 

[Asha]

fana they did exactly the same thing with L2 - they started/bought the main info site for the game and then plastered it with their ads. Not quite as bad as the cosmos tie in...

 

[Ormorof]

about selling items online.... there was an article a week or two ago in The Times newspaper here in the UK about an american company hiring mexican peasants to play (in shifts) 24/7 just farming money and items, they would then sell the cash, items, and/or characters online, i believe they were stopped though (it was for DAoC i believe, Mythic cracked down on them)

the same thing probably wouldnt be possibly in WoW since alot of the best (at least, the best of what ive seen so far, correct me if im wrong) seems to be bind on pick up, meaning you would have to sell the entire account to sell the item

 

[Meduza]

*sigh*

Just becuz its written down and U agree to it, doesn't make it binding. Maybe u think so, but then ur in for a surprice later in life (when u grow up).

 

[Ormorof]

*sigh*

Just becuz its written down and U agree to it, doesn't make it binding. Maybe u think so, but then ur in for a surprice later in life (when u grow up).

if you have agreed to a code of conduct, or a EULA then blizzard can ban or delete your accounts if you break those rules, which they have done

if you want to take blizzard to court for it then feel free

 

[Fana]

*sigh*

Just becuz its written down and U agree to it, doesn't make it binding. Maybe u think so, but then ur in for a surprice later in life (when u grow up).

Actually, look up the legal latin proverb "Pacta Sund Servanda" This is the basis for all western legal tradition with regards to contract law.

 

[tris-]

afaik the contract is binding unless the terms of contract are unfair or do not comply with current laws. a contract is never higher than the law. this is an extreme example but it is easy to get the point across - if in the agreement it says you are not alowed *insert human right here* after you install wow, then the law actually says other wise therfore the whole thing is void.

 

[Fana]

afaik the contract is binding unless the terms of contract are unfair or do not comply with current laws. a contract is never higher than the law. this is an extreme example but it is easy to get the point across - if in the agreement it says you are not alowed *insert human right here* after you install wow, then the law actually says other wise therfore the whole thing is void.

Actually there are two kinds of law, one that can be voided by contractual obligations and one that cannot. Human rights can as you say never be voided by a contract, neither can certain other laws, but far from all law enjoy this forceful status. The basic rule is pacta sund servanda (it means; a contract shall not be broken).

 

[tris-]

i think you can also argue over unfair terms of contract? i know i seen a complaint to ofcom about wanadoo, on those grounds.

 

[Danya]

You can complain to a regulatory body like ofcom, that doesn't necessarily mean the contract isn't valid as it stands though.

 

[Whisperess]

i think you can also argue over unfair terms of contract? i know i seen a complaint to ofcom about wanadoo, on those grounds.

That should be done before agreeing to the contract though, and if you're playing the game, you already agreed to it.

Lemme guess, someone clicked the "I Accept" button before reading it through?

Please do tell what the unfair terms are.

 

[Meduza]

A consumer can never be put worse than the law, nomatter what agreement he might have accepted.

And u should be glad of that!

Ohh, and Im not talking about "taking Blizzard to court", Im talking about ur rights. None of us would ever go to that distance, but that doesnt mean, that what Blizzard is doing is correct!

 

[Meduza]

That should be done before agreeing to the contract though, and if you're playing the game, you already agreed to it.

Lemme guess, someone clicked the "I Accept" button before reading it through?

Please do tell what the unfair terms are.

In Denmark:

U can actually accept a lease(maybe wrong word) on an apartment, and accept an insane high monthly lease, and once the landlord have signed, u can pay "market"-price, nomatter whats in the contract. And best thing is, the landlord cant kick u out if u do so.

Again, consumer protection. Remember we live in europe, where consumers r regarded higher than business (still ) - lets hope it stays that way!

 

[Meduza]

Ohh, and the "unfair terms" (havent read 'em tho) is that Blizzard dont allow u to sell ur account. Its urs, nomatter what u've agreed to. True, the game isnt urs, the server isnt urs, the code isnt urs, etc etc. But the account is, and as long as some1 pays for it, nomatter who bought it first, he should always be granted access to the server on the same terms as everybody else... Otherwise its discrimination

Ohh, and the harassment part in the "agreement" is not unfair, and does allow Blizzard to ban u for a given period, which must be specified and not changed during the "life" of the game.

 

[clearbrook]

Please do tell what the unfair terms are.

"you agree that Blizzard Entertainment shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License Agreement"

You agree'd to pay Blizzard compensation *without proof of damages*. I bet there is no-one on this planet that will actually pay up "without proof of damages"

 

[Whisperess]

Ohh, and the "unfair terms" (havent read 'em tho) is that Blizzard dont allow u to sell ur account. Its urs, nomatter what u've agreed to. True, the game isnt urs, the server isnt urs, the code isnt urs, etc etc. But the account is, and as long as some1 pays for it, nomatter who bought it first, he should always be granted access to the server on the same terms as everybody else... Otherwise its discrimination

Ohh, and the harassment part in the "agreement" is not unfair, and does allow Blizzard to ban u for a given period, which must be specified and not changed during the "life" of the game.

The account isn't yours.

The box you bought, the CD key, the manual, the CD's are all yours. That still doesn't mean you're free to do what you please with them. (copy to give to friends etc)

Neither the account nor characters or items are part of the tangible products you bought in the store. Sorry.

 

[Fana]

Ohh, and the "unfair terms" (havent read 'em tho) is that Blizzard dont allow u to sell ur account. Its urs, nomatter what u've agreed to. True, the game isnt urs, the server isnt urs, the code isnt urs, etc etc. But the account is, and as long as some1 pays for it, nomatter who bought it first, he should always be granted access to the server on the same terms as everybody else... Otherwise its discrimination

What Whisperess said on the same quote. No Court anywhere will recognize that the account is your property. *Thats* the basic assumption you make that flaws your argument. *If* it was your then yes you could do with it as you please, but it *isnt*.
Consumer protection law is indeed a terrific feature of modern law, but you must understand that it has its requisits in order to be applied, just like any law.

After 5 years in lawschool i like to think i have some idea of how these things work

 

[tris-]

That should be done before agreeing to the contract though, and if you're playing the game, you already agreed to it.

Lemme guess, someone clicked the "I Accept" button before reading it through?

Please do tell what the unfair terms are.

i think next time you should read my post, but to make it easier for you - not once anywhere did i say i thought the tos was unfair. if you can quote me where i said that though then i will answer your question.

and yes i never read the agreement which is my problem, so i dont think its right for me to say any of it is unfair (which i never said at all btw). i dont usualy read the agreement unless its something serious (this is a game...)

also,. if the cdkey is your property then can you not tell blizzard that you no longer want them to use your property and you would like it back and in usable condition? i bet if you emailed em theyd have none of it though.

 

[Fana]

also,. if the cdkey is your property then can you not tell blizzard that you no longer want them to use your property and you would like it back and in usable condition? i bet if you emailed em theyd have none of it though.

Think of the cd key as a form of exchange currency only useable to get an account. If you asked for your currency (i.e. money) back after leasing a car you wouldnt get it either (well unless there was something wrong with the car that pervented you from fully using it, but thats a whole other discussion).

 

[tris-]

oh well, thanks for the education

 

[Whisperess]

i think next time you should read my post, but to make it easier for you - not once anywhere did i say i thought the tos was unfair. if you can quote me where i said that though then i will answer your question.

Fair enough.

is binding unless the terms of contract are unfair or do not comply with current laws.

I know you said or in that sentance, but my question is still valid since they do comply with current laws.

Not that it matters anyway; Blizzard isn't doing anything against the law here, and anyone trying to make them look illegal would have a pretty hard time doing so. Those legal terms are hardly written by a summer intern

 

[Danya]

"you agree that Blizzard Entertainment shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License Agreement"

You agree'd to pay Blizzard compensation *without proof of damages*. I bet there is no-one on this planet that will actually pay up "without proof of damages"

That just says that Blizzard may act upon breaches of the agreement without having to prove that by breaching them you caused damages to Blizzard.
For instance, they can ban you for attempting to sell your account without having to prove that by selling your account you are damaging their business or property, they merely have to prove that you broke the license agreement (which you did since it specifically states you can't sell your account).

 

[Meduza]

What Whisperess said on the same quote. No Court anywhere will recognize that the account is your property. *Thats* the basic assumption you make that flaws your argument. *If* it was your then yes you could do with it as you please, but it *isnt*.

U r wrong - the account *is* mine.

Consumer protection law is indeed a terrific feature of modern law

True.

, but you must understand that it has its requisits in order to be applied, just like any law.

I didnt get that - the "requisits"-part?

After 5 years in lawschool i like to think i have some idea of how these things work

Apparently not. Sry.

 

[Jupitus]

U r wrong - the account *is* mine.


True.


I didnt get that - the "requisits"-part?


Apparently not. Sry.

Why not back up what you are saying with some logical argument or thought? This thread is going nowhere as long as all you can manage is 'I'm right you're wrong 'cos I said so'....

 

[Fana]

Its ok Jupitus, Im going to stop arguing with Meduza since he obviously wont be shifted in his wiews, and i have a feeling ill only get more abuse if i keep trying to explain how these things work.

Just a friendly suggestion, try to back up your agruments when discussing, and even better, with facts.

 

[Soulslayer]

there are loopholes as in everything, as someone said you could sell the login details.
there were ppl selling rifle bags for like $500 and including a free gun, there is always a way round.

 

[Meduza]

Why not back up what you are saying with some logical argument or thought? This thread is going nowhere as long as all you can manage is 'I'm right you're wrong 'cos I said so'....

I dont need to convince 12-yrs old who obviously dont rly care...

Its ok Jupitus, Im going to stop arguing with Meduza since he obviously wont be shifted in his wiews, and i have a feeling ill only get more abuse if i keep trying to explain how these things work.

Just a friendly suggestion, try to back up your agruments when discussing, and even better, with facts.

Wasnt to offend u. And I would back up with facts if I had the time. But some of us actually works instead of playing 24/7 (or being a student like urself).

Ur 1st post (I think it was) was good. Good arguments, but as U r asking me for, where is the facts? But as u said urself "far from all law enjoy this forceful status" the status of contract over law (or contract over consumer rights).

ALl im saying is, that BLizzard cant deny ppl playing their game, unless they harass other ppl. Ppl can buy and sell their account(s) as they see fit, and if Blizzard denies them that right, not only r Blizzard obstructing the movement of goods (i think its called), but also discrimination certain "ppl" over others. Ohh, and discrimination isnt racial meant.

Its like if ur mini-mart sells u a "free coffee fill-up bottle for 2005", and u sell that to a friend, and then the friend returns to get a free fill-up, but dont get his fill-up, becuz he didnt actually buy that particular bottle from that shop. That isnt allowed by the mini-mart, even if they clearly points out, that the bottle is individual and cannot be sold to others. The use of the bottle is 2005 and no-matter who returns with it, he should get a fill up. The "contract" follows the good, not the individual. (Insurrances for example is an exemption of this tho). Like the guarantee period we all have of 1-2 yrs follows the good and not the individual.

 

[Whisperess]

The "contract" follows the good, not the individual.

That actually made me laugh, thank you

 

[Sendraks]

Like the guarantee period we all have of 1-2 yrs follows the good and not the individual.

While you're right here, as I've purchased 2nd hand goods under guarantee and had the guarantee honoured by the manufacturer, you're working under the assumption that this applies to all purchases.

It doesn't.

As has been explained to you, all you have bought is a copy of the game and the CD key. Thats where your ownership of the game begins and ends. Because you have made these purchases you are able to lease an account from Blizzard. It is "their" property you are leasing and you must continue to pay to have the right to lease "their" property. It does not confer on you the right to transfer that lease (or sell the account) without the permission of blizzard.

The part with this I have the problem with (though I don't agree with the selling of accounts) is the actual contents of the account and who that belongs to. I'm happy to have someone spell this out to me.

For example.

You lease an apartment. All you're paying for is the right to have that space to live in and fill for your possessions. You do not have the right to transfer that lease to another individual, without the consent of the Landlord. The Landlord, if they were to find that you had moved out and "given" or "sold" the lease to the apartment to someone else, would be well within their rights to evict that individual and prosecute you as a person. It is, after all, "their" property.

However, this is the tricky part for me, lets say that you agreed with the individual you transferred the lease to, that they could have the various furnishings you had purchased for the apartment but then could not be bothered to move out. While they are in the Landlord's property, they are still your possessions. If you violate the agreement of your lease by giving or selling the apartment to someone else (with your possessions as part of the deal) does that person have any right to them? Or does the Landlord? Or are they still techniqually yours?

Grateful for your thoughts. Though I'd welcome an argument above and beyond "they are yours because you paid for them" because that, legally, does not cut it.