| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Rickilicious
United States220 Posts
just cause a little boy has lunch money, and you are bigger, doesn't mean you should take it... hmm, but i guess that doesn't exclude you from assuming you get tributes for his protection.. hmm.. well it's accurate, but idk if it works.. but all in all, this is why i play minecraft lawl | ||
|
SubPointOA
United States183 Posts
On November 14 2010 14:46 LG)Sabbath wrote: isn't this actually a good argument though? the balls were made to be used as a sport, I doubt blizzard intended having SC ever becoming a popular sport in Korea. | ||
|
Mioraka
Canada1353 Posts
On November 15 2010 12:48 latan wrote: Sense is a keyword here, no matter how much you want to dissmiss it, we're discussing in the abstract here and nothing's set in stone. it does matter if it makes sense or not, the law is behind in these situations and things should make sense or otherwise we're all fucked. it makes absolutely no sense that blizz can expect to control the use i give to the software i bought if i'm not incurring in taking sales away from them. that is the bottom line for me. they shouldn't be allowed to do this. if the law allows them it's because it's a grey area and things aren't well defined legally, not because it's a fair right of them to have. It's not a grey area. And why you say they want to control you? They are not, they are trying to make a profit, and guess what? That's their freaking job. If you buy a software, the contract says you can only use it for personal purposes, and you agreed. But you can't use it to earn a profit, if you do, you have to share that profit with the creator of the product. Which is fairly reasonable to me-- you use something that doesnt belong to you for profit, you pay a share to who it belongs to. Just like a bank loan, it's a capitalist state, not charity event. You don't own a software, and thats just how it is. If you dont agree with it, then next time dont click "I AGREE". | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
however, i cant help but want Blizzard to win this. from what ive heard, Kespa mistreats the progamers, uses dirty tactics to defame Blizzard, SC2, and people they dont like (Nada), and who knows what else. Blizzard is the one who created this genius video game series and theyve shown that they have the resources to throw big tournaments. All Kespa does now is enslave gamers to play Blizzards game. They don't create anything and just want to make claims to profits based on other people's property (blah blah BS soccer analogy doesnt work. If the inventor of soccer was alive and in our current society, I am sure he could make claims to the sports proceeds). Again, I cant help but side with Blizzard. | ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
| ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
I was confused to why that person stated players should have IP rights from Starcraft, and I told him to clarify on what he was talking about. I understood the concept of IP rights case of the chess player he mentioned, but could not connect it to the analogy he made to Starcraft. So I assumed he may of been confused to what exactly IP rights were and how you go through the process of obtaining them. I am already starting some of my law courses now, but I've yet to fully decide if I want to go into that field. Then I told him that the players or people using Starcraft are limited to what they can do by the EULA. Yet the moment he patronizes me, I could tell he was trolling me somewhat. I'll reiterate what I mean more clearly. EULA are contracts that you make with the company to use their products or parts of it. It limits your use to a license to protect their rights of it. However, not all of them are legally bounded and enforced by law if the current jurisdiction deems it unreasonable through contra proferentem. It is generally stated in common law that EULAs are a legally-binded contract at first though. EULA does not go into effect until you actually have the intent to use the product or any parts of it. Once you agree or accept the terms, then you consent to using the product and to the EULA. This is why you can resell Starcraft 2 if you have not used the CD Key to a battle.net account. However, once you do use it, your CD key becomes blizzard's property as it is now tied to battle.net. It becomes non-transferable since you cannot sell your battle.net account without possible action by Blizzard. If you don't agree to the EULA, you can always decline and not install and not use the product. If you don't agree to it either, take it to court or go ask your law makers to change the law. | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
Upon installation, you see the EULA. That is arguably not part of the contract, as the terms have been made known after the contract had been both formed and executed. Further, it's not easy to return a purchased item for full price. There have been quite a few EULAs that courts have found to not be terms incorporated into the contract, on that exact basis. I'm too busy to dig up examples right now, but I'll post them later. | ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On November 15 2010 13:09 SubPointOA wrote: the balls were made to be used as a sport, I doubt blizzard intended having SC ever becoming a popular sport in Korea. Soccer clubs pay football associations in order to compete and television rights are negotiated on much the same terms between clubs and football associations and broadcast rights. Comparing soccer ball manufacturers is more like saying I made a map you play on I should control the whole of e-sports. | ||
|
toadstool
Australia421 Posts
On November 15 2010 08:17 TheGreatHegemon wrote: Starcraft is nothing but a massive set of rules. Anything processed/displayed on a computer is merely being run through the rules/instructions. Everything is a massive set of rules. The law, how people make money, work, Microsoft. What the hell are you trying to say? This is how our society is made, through rules and regulations. | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
Is this accurate? | ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On November 15 2010 13:26 Pleiades wrote: No offense, I stated being an undergrad law student, but it wasn't meant something to be bragged about. I was confused to why that person stated players should have IP rights from Starcraft, and I told him to clarify on what he was talking about. I understood the concept of IP rights case of the chess player he mentioned, but could not connect it to the analogy he made to Starcraft. So I assumed he may of been confused to what exactly IP rights were and how you go through the process of obtaining them. I am already starting some of my law courses now, but I've yet to fully decide if I want to go into that field. Then I told him that the players or people using Starcraft are limited to what they can do by the EULA. Yet the moment he patronizes me, I could tell he was trolling me somewhat. I'll reiterate what I mean more clearly. EULA are contracts that you make with the company to use their products or parts of it. It limits your use to a license to protect their rights of it. However, not all of them are legally bounded and enforced by law if the current jurisdiction deems it unreasonable through contra proferentem. It is generally stated in common law that EULAs are a legally-binded contract at first though. EULA does not go into effect until you actually have the intent to use the product or any parts of it. Once you agree or accept the terms, then you consent to using the product and to the EULA. This is why you can resell Starcraft 2 if you have not used the CD Key to a battle.net account. However, once you do use it, your CD key becomes blizzard's property as it is now tied to battle.net. It becomes non-transferable since you cannot sell your battle.net account without possible action by Blizzard. If you don't agree to the EULA, you can always decline and not install and not use the product. If you don't agree to it either, take it to court or go ask your law makers to change the law. However most EULA's you cant read/accepted (under consumer rights have to be voluntary not forced) untill you unwrap your purchase at which time you have no option of a refund and in the UK at least we have data protection laws that cant be overridden by a EULA so most EULAs here are about as binding as wet toilet paper. | ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:02 raviy wrote: Er... Let's go back to basic contract law. A contract only incorporates terms agreed upon before, or at formation of the contract. A shop has a SC2 box on the shelf, that's an invitation to treat. Someone takes that to the counter, and makes an offer to the cashier to purchase. Cashier accepts, contract formed. Money handed over, SC2 handed over. Contract executed. Upon installation, you see the EULA. That is arguably not part of the contract, as the terms have been made known after the contract had been both formed and executed. Further, it's not easy to return a purchased item for full price. There have been quite a few EULAs that courts have found to not be terms incorporated into the contract, on that exact basis. I'm too busy to dig up examples right now, but I'll post them later. Which is why, as someone pointed out earlier, theres a little white area on the top of the Starcraft 2 box clear as day that tells you the product is subject to the EULA and even gives you a website to see it before you make the purchase, i.e. before you finish the first "contract." Edit: Pulled out my BW case and theres an area on the back saying something similar + that it can't be used for commercial use.  | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:10 FrostOtter wrote: So it sounds to me that a better way to look at Blizzard's ownership v. our "rights" is that our use of Starcraft/2/BW is more like renting than purchasing...but without a recurring fee. Is this accurate? They give you a license to use the game, but that use is limited by the EULA that you agreed to upon installing the content of the software product. Companies want you to use their products in a certain way based on what they license you to it. Buying their software does not entitle you to use their product on whatever you want to use it as. | ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:13 xBillehx wrote: Which is why, as someone pointed out earlier, theres a little white area on the top of the Starcraft 2 box clear as day that tells you the product is subject to the EULA and even gives you a website to see it before you make the purchase, i.e. before you finish the first "contract." Edit: Pulled out my BW case and theres an area on the back saying the exact same thing. That doesnt fly in the UK it has to be on the product. As again shows the example of how ignorant of international laws most EULA writers are. Also since even with my rudimentary knowledge of data protection laws and consumer rights here I know that the EULA breaks our laws in at least 2 or 3 areas. | ||
|
Egyptian_Head
South Africa508 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:12 Vimsey wrote: However most EULA's you cant read/accepted (under consumer rights have to be voluntary not forced) untill you unwrap your purchase at which time you have no option of a refund and in the UK at least we have data protection laws that cant be overridden by a EULA so most EULAs here are about as binding as wet toilet paper. I don't have thse starcraft box here but I believe that on the out side of the box it states that there is a eula and you must accept it in order to install the software. It also states where the eula can be found before hand. But I don't have the box on me so im just going on bad memory. | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
On November 15 2010 13:15 Mioraka wrote: It's not a grey area. And why you say they want to control you? They are not, they are trying to make a profit, and guess what? That's their freaking job. If you buy a software, the contract says you can only use it for personal purposes, and you agreed. But you can't use it to earn a profit, if you do, you have to share that profit with the creator of the product. Which is fairly reasonable to me-- you use something that doesnt belong to you for profit, you pay a share to who it belongs to. Just like a bank loan, it's a capitalist state, not charity event. You don't own a software, and thats just how it is. If you dont agree with it, then next time dont click "I AGREE". look i don't want to discuss this anymore and you're clearly being delibertely obtuse so i'll just clarify: It IS a grey area, no matter how much you want to ignore it, we live in times where IP rights are constantly being reevaluated, and the law is years behind the changes in society that require normativity for this matters. they are trying to make a profit, yes, thank you captain obvious that's not what we're discussing. they are trying to get hold of all possible opportunities to make a profit by saying that they have control over how you use they piece of software you just bought. it's their jobs, so what? that doesn't mean they can get away with it, it's also the job of BP to try to find loopholes in their laws so they can avoid enviromental legislations isn't it?, I see my job as a person living on this planet and on this society where i don't get to make the rules to comment on them. of course they want to make a profit, but they have absolutely no right to say i can't use it to make a profit as well, as long as it doesn't hurt them in an obvious way. what exactly is personal purposes?, what if i buy it solely for the purpose of making a profit?, that seems like a personal purpose to me, can you please define personal purposes? or is a software company allowed to define what is and is not personal?, why can't i use the same mindset of a capitalistic state and put my purchase to work? why is it that only big coorparoations have this right in you view? they don't get to say what that they can forbid any activity which allows me from profitting from their software. that's inane. and they don't get to say that either morally or even legally no matter how much EULAS there are between this. | ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:16 Vimsey wrote: That doesnt fly in the UK it has to be on the product. As again shows the example of how ignorant of international laws most EULA writers are. Really? I didn't know that there needs to be 2+ pages of text on the boxes of things in the UK. Can you show me an example? | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
While that is not to say that Blizzard automatically wins, and I am sure the issue is even further muddied by the internationality of the issue, my guess is that Blizzard's lawyers are not letting the company operate blindly, either. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:12 Vimsey wrote: However most EULA's you cant read/accepted (under consumer rights have to be voluntary not forced) untill you unwrap your purchase at which time you have no option of a refund and in the UK at least we have data protection laws that cant be overridden by a EULA so most EULAs here are about as binding as wet toilet paper. However, most or all software products have texts somewhere on the packaging/cover that states acceptance of the EULA is required to use the product. Most of the time it is in small print so you have to look at the product more carefully before purchasing it. As I said before, EULA does not go into effect until you intend to use it. (opening and installing the product) | ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On November 15 2010 14:17 xBillehx wrote: Really? I didn't know that there needs to be 2+ pages of text on the boxes of things in the UK. Can you show me an example? We have very strong consumer protection laws. If someone wants to make 2+ pages of conditions prior to purchase they have to be made known at the time of purchase not after or they need to refund if the conditions cant be agreed by the consumer. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Summer Champion…
WardiTV Summer Champion…
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
