EPTThe other terms are just there to prevent hacks/bots.
Bottom line: you accepted the terms when you clicked agree to install the games; if you don't agree with the terms, well, the clients wouldn't even install.
Simple as that.
Blizzard's Terms are Illegal - Page 2
| Blogs > mmp |
|
SoManyDeadLings
Canada255 Posts
The other terms are just there to prevent hacks/bots. Bottom line: you accepted the terms when you clicked agree to install the games; if you don't agree with the terms, well, the clients wouldn't even install. Simple as that. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On May 28 2010 09:53 mmp wrote: Yes, exactly because no one reads the terms for a computer game versus a license for more important goods and services. There is no means of verifying that a user agreed to the terms as they are presented - therefore Blizzard's claims constitute "fine print." If Blizzard just said they could ban users for completely arbitrary reasons (such as race, religion, politics) and it was in the ToS, it would still be an illegal overreach of your civil liberties to enjoy a good or service - precisely because a wide audience of people who may be harmed wouldn't know what they were getting into. In general, you have a right to use your computer hardware as you like (provided you harm no one else) and it takes far more sophisticated legal statements than this to invalidate your property rights. Civil liberties is frankly an over reach if you're going to argue this that is not the way to go. Property rights/consumer rights is much easier rout to argue that what they are doing is wrong. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 09:57 semantics wrote: Nope, it's a private service they can do what they want, discrimination for no reason is frankly only auto protected to the elderly obviously you never heard of the boyscouts, You obviously don't know about gym memberships or cell phone contracts either. "Your defense is i am an idiot, not my fault, blizz is mean took advant(fuck that word is soo long) me by sur prize! Hell me please" You're very wrong and making a fool of yourself, please stop. In the U.S., private services offered to the public are subject to the law - they cannot act with impunity or refuse service for reasons protected by the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives narrow exceptions for non-profits, religious groups, and businesses that have a true conflicts of interest or normal operation. Property rights were established and well-understood long before civil rights, so this shouldn't be a contentious point. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 09:59 semantics wrote: Civil liberties is frankly an over reach if you're going to argue this that is not the way to go. Property rights/consumer rights is much easier rout to argue that what they are doing is wrong. I'll put it in simple words. You can use your computer any way you like provided you don't break the law. Blizzard cannot deny you service because you like to use your computer in ways that don't break the law. You would have to knowingly (and certifiably) agree to this for Blizzard to deny you service. Done. | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
 Don't sweat the terms of use unless you are planning on using malicious software to cheat in this game or gain money off of it without their consent. Did you know that warden scans your computer and records everything? Now warden is evil but guess what it was found to be a legal program for Blizzard to use. Here is what you just agreed to have running on your computer by accepting their TOS. Warden | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
Azerbaijan
United States660 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:13 mmp wrote: I'll put it in simple words. You can use your computer any way you like provided you don't break the law. Blizzard cannot deny you service because you like to use your computer in ways that don't break the law. You would have to knowingly (and certifiably) agree to this for Blizzard to deny you service. Done. Do we not agree to this every time we sign into Bnet 2.0? I don't like the terms much but its their product and service and they have the right to deny it to anyone they want. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:19 Kralic wrote: I gave this blog a 5/5 but then I realized he was serious. Don't sweat the terms of use unless you are planning on using malicious software to cheat in this game or gain money off of it without their consent. Did you know that warden scans your computer and records everything? Now warden is evil but guess what it was found to be a legal program for Blizzard to use. Here is what you just agreed to have running on your computer by accepting their TOS. Warden It's not malicious software I'm defending. Warden is illegal, by the way. On May 28 2010 10:19 ShaperofDreams wrote: mmp it doesn't matter, and what blizzard is doing is legal. who cares whether people read the user agreement or not, they are supposed to. So you agree that you don't have the right to run programs like APMLive, or Build order coachers, Rich's latency-fixing program, latency fixes that may come in the future, etc? And you forfeit the right to customize textures, sounds, models, configuration files...? You forfeit all of this? | ||
|
wanderer
United States641 Posts
On May 28 2010 09:45 Destro wrote: Yes, blizzard is reserving the right to stop tournaments. Does this mean they are stopping tournaments? no. I agree with this guy. Its like in America: do we have the right to own guns? Yes. Does that mean we all have them? No. | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
| ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:28 Kralic wrote: I don't know why people are thinking these are the ToS for SC2, this is for the battle.net 2.0 platform. You play SC2 on BNet. The ToS apply to "the Game," whatever Blizzard game you may be playing. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:25 mmp wrote: It's not malicious software I'm defending. So you agree that you don't have the right to run programs like APMLive, or Build order coachers, Rich's latency-fixing program, latency fixes that may come in the future, etc? And you forfeit the right to customize textures, sounds, models, configuration files...? You forfeit all of this? YES YES YES. If you don't want to then don't buy the game. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:36 seppolevne wrote: YES YES YES. If you don't want to then don't buy the game. So you think Rich and anyone who uses his program deserve to have their accounts revoked? How about the TL users that are customizing textures and other game features. They don't deserve to play on the same server as you? You may worship a benevolent dictator, but don't complain when the other shoe drops. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
F and G suck for players but are completely within Blizzard's rights to specify as far as I can tell. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:46 Musoeun wrote: The only one I don't see why it's not reasonable is 2D. And that's mainly because I'm not sure what it's talking about. F and G suck for players but are completely within Blizzard's rights to specify as far as I can tell. These aren't opinions. It's about legal interpretation. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:41 mmp wrote: So you think Rich and anyone who uses his program deserve to have their accounts revoked? How about the TL users that are customizing textures and other game features. They don't deserve to play on the same server as you? You may worship a benevolent dictator, but don't complain when the other shoe drops. If Blizzard wanted to revoke their accounts, they would absolutely be within their rights. Does it suck? Yes. Is it in any way illegal? No. How is that so hard to understand? | ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
On May 28 2010 09:40 mmp wrote: You must knowingly forfeit your property rights. It is understood that virtually no user reads or understands these agreements, therefore the claims are invalid. This is incorrect by Canadian law. You can't claim that you were unaware after accepting a terms of use agreement because it counts as reasonable notice. I'm pretty sure American contract law is the same in this regard. If you're trying to make an argument as to how regulation prevents some of these contract terms, make it. Don't make extreme claims such as, "this says you don't own your RAM" without quoting some regulation. At a glance, it looks fine to me. Edit: Seriously, this is a basic standard form offer. I don't know why you're making such strong claims without support. | ||
|
wanderer
United States641 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:32 mmp wrote: You play only SC2 on BNet because of the NO LAN thing. The ToS apply to "the Game," whatever Blizzard game you may be playing. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:54 seppolevne wrote: If Blizzard wanted to revoke their accounts, they would absolutely be within their rights. Does it suck? Yes. Is it in any way illegal? No. How is that so hard to understand? Show me a legal (U.S.) ruling that backs the right of commercial software to restrict access to computer memory. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 28 2010 10:56 Durak wrote: I thought this thread was going to contain a legal argument since the title is "Blizzard's terms are illegal." However, this quote destroyed that hope. This is incorrect by Canadian law. You can't claim that you were unaware after accepting a terms of use agreement because it counts as reasonable notice. I'm pretty sure American contract law is the same in this regard. If you're trying to make an argument as to how regulation prevents some of these contract terms, make it. Don't make extreme claims such as, "this says you don't own your RAM" without quoting some regulation. At a glance, it looks fine to me. Edit: Seriously, this is a basic standard form offer. I don't know why you're making such strong claims without support. I agree that the Canadian interpretation makes sense - but when fine print oversteps what it has a reasonable right to claim (in this case property rights over your computer hardware), then you can take it to court (in the U.S. anyway). Your bias is backwards. It's a basic and standard form in that companies often say things that have zero legal backing. No one cares to bring these things to court because of the cost - when was the last time you saw a class action lawsuit over a video game? | ||
| ||
