|
Well, they should be warning them, becuase it IS against the terms of use, and not doing anything would be like treating the pros differently from the standard sc2 player, which is not really professional.
The problem isn't that they are against account sharing, but that they're not doing anything to fix HuKs own accout.
|
On June 25 2011 03:28 vrok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:22 Hoon wrote:On June 25 2011 03:15 vrok wrote:On June 25 2011 03:11 Hoon wrote:On June 25 2011 02:56 vrok wrote:On June 25 2011 02:49 Hoon wrote:
I don't know why people are hating so much on Blizzard.
Account sharing in any way is not allowed according to the ToS and EULA.
Everyone that read the thread about 'piracy kills LAN' understands why Blizz don't want to add LAN to SC2. Letting people share accounts also makes them lose some money, especially when a pro-player is doing it on a stream, which 'encourages' other players to do so as well.
Blizard just wants to defend their money, and their action didn't affect anyone at all, it was just a warning to not encourage people to share accounts. Don't bring up that bullshit. Piracy has nothing to do with why Blizzard won't implement LAN or is against random, non-malicious account sharing. It's all about control, 'lost sales' of individual copies is not a factor. You clearly didn't the thread I mentioned. Money is the main reason to not add LAN. Why would they remove a feature that has been out there for so long? Because the majority of the people that plays DotA casually play on Garena or any pirated server. Account sharing also takes their sales down. If you let pro-gamers share their account on a stream, but ban random players that share their accounts between friends, it's gonna be much worse. Money is the reason, yes, but piracy isn't. Period. Thinking that piracy is the reason is beyond naive. Blizzard does this because they want to have control over every game in every tournament everywhere. It has nothing to do with piracy. The map market is one of many Blizzard ideas that serve as proof for this. According to the ToS, you are not allowed to organize tournaments without consulting Blizzard. So they already have control over any relevant tournament. How can they care about money without caring about piracy? The only thing that decreases their income is the use of pirated and shared accounts. If they can't enforce it, they don't have control over it. See KeSPA vs Blizzard. ToS isn't legally binding without going to court over it for a long time. It's not about 'losing income' (typical piracy bs), it's about growing Battle.net 2.0 to become a money generating platform. To do that they have to force everyone to use it, and under their full control. That's why we don't have LAN. What makes the situation so laughable and unreasonable is that Battle.net 2.0 is a HORRIBLE platform.
I think that we are steering away from the actual point of this thread, so I'll close our discussion agreeing that, yes, Blizzard wants to force us to use their Bnet platform, which is terrible atm. But I don't think that they can keep it as it is now with such a big community that we are. There are 2 more expansions for SC2 and Diablo 3 to come, so they will HAVE to change it.
But my main point is that they have to interfere in those situations like in HSC so they show everyone that their ToS still works and you can be punished if you don't follow it. People can't blame Blizzard for defending their money. Maybe 'closing' TLO's account is too much (temporally banning is reasonable),but it's still under the ToS.
And Also, KeSPA and Blizzard sign contracts from time to time so they can organize championships regularly.
|
On June 25 2011 03:39 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:20 chickenhawk wrote:
So what? It is true that customers have a say in it, but rules are rules, when you buy the game, you agree to use it in line with the Terms of Use. It feels really silly and small to me aswell to really go ahead and warn the progamers about it, but if it has to be done, it has to be done. Hating Blizzard for it is sillier than their approach about account sharing.
TOS in europe = illegal Any contract you sign after you have bought something in europe is illegal! No one show me the TOS when i bought it, they only show me when i tryed to play the game. THEREFORE it is ILLEGAL. http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/11/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-eula/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/09/02/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/17/the-lawbringer-rookies-guide-to-the-eula-part-2/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/06/21/the-lawbringer-new-battle-net-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/03/09/the-lawbringer-euro-ver-my-head-contract-law-edition-page-2/Here are some posts I have found in WoWinsider, written by a senior law student, who examines the ToS, EULA and all that good jazz. Especially the last one makes it clear that ToS and EULA for Europe is binding aswell, as there are different EULA and ToS for both versions, though almost practically same (with some small differences) as the author has said. It is about World of Warcraft, but I don't think it would be really different from SC2, as both of them involve Battle.net accounts. Different countries, different laws.
|
This was actually matter of time. against blizzard silly policies. :/
|
On June 25 2011 03:39 ThaTiger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. I really like this poll, Gnax really seems to know his stuff!! not........ "people who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game" nope, you agreed on it when you instealled the game AFTER you bought it, that's a big different
Over here in the States, shrink-wrap agreements have been declared constitutional. See ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996) for more information on that.
|
On June 25 2011 03:25 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:14 splinter9 wrote:On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. seriously fuck off with reading the agreement no one does that. Secondly it not even valid in a lot of the world. That's not an excuse to break the ToS. In general, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break the law. ToS isn't law like you are saying. Ignorance of such agreements has been a good argument in court in the past. It depends on the specifics of the case.
There has been federal case law (see the Lori Drew case) that state that a violation of a ToS amounts to unauthorized use of a service, which is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (which criminalizes any unauthorized use or access of a computer service - or basically anything with a microchip).
EDIT TO ADD: I'm not saying that Blizzard is right - I'm just sayin', legally speaking, ToS /may/ have the force of law if the DoJ wants it to.
|
On June 25 2011 03:39 ThaTiger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. I really like this poll, Gnax really seems to know his stuff!! not........ "people who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game" nope, you agreed on it when you instealled the game AFTER you bought it, that's a big different
Which everyone in this thread has done. So it's exactly the same 
|
On June 25 2011 03:40 ak1knight wrote:
This may have been said, but HuK playing on TLO's account helped him stay in GM and get up to the top 2. This makes it unfair for other players trying to get into GM and reduces the legitimacy of the rankings.
In all likelihood TLO's wrist will still be injured by the time BlizzCon comes around so it won't even matter. Anything else?
|
On June 25 2011 03:39 tsuxiit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:33 vrok wrote:On June 25 2011 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:25 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On June 25 2011 03:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:14 splinter9 wrote:On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. seriously fuck off with reading the agreement no one does that. Secondly it not even valid in a lot of the world. That's not an excuse to break the ToS. In general, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break the law. ToS isn't law like you are saying. Ignorance of such agreements has been a good argument in court in the past. It depends on the specifics of the case. Interesting. Then why have ToS at all? Because naive people like you believe in them regardless. I'm pretty sure naivety =/= acceptance of legal contracts. I'm pretty sure it's more of an acknowledgement of agreement. But sure, if we're just arguing semantics now... Or you won't ever get a job if you think those things are for sissies who can't *stick it to the man*. Either way, I'm done. Enjoy your day, guys  Yeah, leave the forum when your argument falls apart and you look like an idiot. Please get off this site.
Dude.. I really don't think you should go there.. No reason to be rude, Plasma is making a completely valid argument - Agree or disagree
|
On June 25 2011 03:39 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:20 chickenhawk wrote:
So what? It is true that customers have a say in it, but rules are rules, when you buy the game, you agree to use it in line with the Terms of Use. It feels really silly and small to me aswell to really go ahead and warn the progamers about it, but if it has to be done, it has to be done. Hating Blizzard for it is sillier than their approach about account sharing.
TOS in europe = illegal Any contract you sign after you have bought something in europe is illegal! No one show me the TOS when i bought it, they only show me when i tryed to play the game. THEREFORE it is ILLEGAL. http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/11/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-eula/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/09/02/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/17/the-lawbringer-rookies-guide-to-the-eula-part-2/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/06/21/the-lawbringer-new-battle-net-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/03/09/the-lawbringer-euro-ver-my-head-contract-law-edition-page-2/Here are some posts I have found in WoWinsider, written by a senior law student, who examines the ToS, EULA and all that good jazz. Especially the last one makes it clear that ToS and EULA for Europe is binding aswell, as there are different EULA and ToS for both versions, though almost practically same (with some small differences) as the author has said. It is about World of Warcraft, but I don't think it would be really different from SC2, as both of them involve Battle.net accounts.
Maybe for the UK.
In continetal europe it is not a contract since the customer is purchasing the whole game before being given the possibility of reading it.
|
On June 25 2011 03:41 Akta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:39 Bleak wrote:On June 25 2011 03:20 chickenhawk wrote:
So what? It is true that customers have a say in it, but rules are rules, when you buy the game, you agree to use it in line with the Terms of Use. It feels really silly and small to me aswell to really go ahead and warn the progamers about it, but if it has to be done, it has to be done. Hating Blizzard for it is sillier than their approach about account sharing.
TOS in europe = illegal Any contract you sign after you have bought something in europe is illegal! No one show me the TOS when i bought it, they only show me when i tryed to play the game. THEREFORE it is ILLEGAL. http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/11/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-eula/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/09/02/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/17/the-lawbringer-rookies-guide-to-the-eula-part-2/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/06/21/the-lawbringer-new-battle-net-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/03/09/the-lawbringer-euro-ver-my-head-contract-law-edition-page-2/Here are some posts I have found in WoWinsider, written by a senior law student, who examines the ToS, EULA and all that good jazz. Especially the last one makes it clear that ToS and EULA for Europe is binding aswell, as there are different EULA and ToS for both versions, though almost practically same (with some small differences) as the author has said. It is about World of Warcraft, but I don't think it would be really different from SC2, as both of them involve Battle.net accounts. Different countries, different laws.
Have you even read what I've posted?
|
i am lost for words :3
if huk mmr is too high to find games, where is the guy who's mmr is too low to find games ^_-
at least i get to know what a "community manager" is doing now~
|
On June 25 2011 03:36 btxmonty wrote:
Blizzard even allows account sharing in tournaments, look at the GSTL or MLG. Blizzard is slowly turning into what everyone hates about activision.
Blizzard are like the _______? (so many options I cant settle on one)
"If you want to judge a man's character, give him power."
|
Well after reading that , i am really convinced we'll never see LAN nor good support by Blizzard. What a fucking joke
|
On June 25 2011 03:41 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:39 ThaTiger wrote:On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. I really like this poll, Gnax really seems to know his stuff!! not........ "people who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game" nope, you agreed on it when you instealled the game AFTER you bought it, that's a big different Over here in the States, shrink-wrap agreements have been declared constitutional. See ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996) for more information on that.
Yes, Luckily over here in continental europe we live in the free world and we don't have a suppresive government. (See Net Neutrality in The Netherlands).
|
guys. blizzard needs the 60 dollars. guys. cmon. guys.
this is so silly. I hope that was just some new temp that didnt understand.
|
This reminds me of last summer, when Kespa phoned ESL because they didn't want NaDa to play a showmatch :p
|
On June 25 2011 03:41 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:39 ThaTiger wrote:On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. I really like this poll, Gnax really seems to know his stuff!! not........ "people who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game" nope, you agreed on it when you instealled the game AFTER you bought it, that's a big different Over here in the States, shrink-wrap agreements have been declared constitutional. See ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996) for more information on that.
Then it's good that Huk did this in Europe, on an Europe account ^_^
|
On June 25 2011 03:42 ELA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:39 tsuxiit wrote:On June 25 2011 03:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:33 vrok wrote:On June 25 2011 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:25 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On June 25 2011 03:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2011 03:14 splinter9 wrote:On June 25 2011 03:12 Gnax wrote:Poll: Who is stupid?Blizzard (173) 75% People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game (58) 25% 231 total votes Your vote: Who is stupid? (Vote): Blizzard
(Vote): People who complain about something they all agreed to when they bought the game
I'm trying to make sense of what the majority of people think here. seriously fuck off with reading the agreement no one does that. Secondly it not even valid in a lot of the world. That's not an excuse to break the ToS. In general, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break the law. ToS isn't law like you are saying. Ignorance of such agreements has been a good argument in court in the past. It depends on the specifics of the case. Interesting. Then why have ToS at all? Because naive people like you believe in them regardless. I'm pretty sure naivety =/= acceptance of legal contracts. I'm pretty sure it's more of an acknowledgement of agreement. But sure, if we're just arguing semantics now... Or you won't ever get a job if you think those things are for sissies who can't *stick it to the man*. Either way, I'm done. Enjoy your day, guys Yeah, leave the forum when your argument falls apart and you look like an idiot. Please get off this site. Dude.. I really don't think you should go there.. No reason to be rude, Plasma is making a completely valid argument - Agree or disagree
Signing a childish insult like "you won't ever get a job b/c you don't see it my way" with an obnoxious emoticon while coolly dismissing all his opponents and then evacuating? Right or wrong, it didn't help his image.
|
On June 25 2011 03:43 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 03:41 Akta wrote:On June 25 2011 03:39 Bleak wrote:On June 25 2011 03:20 chickenhawk wrote:
So what? It is true that customers have a say in it, but rules are rules, when you buy the game, you agree to use it in line with the Terms of Use. It feels really silly and small to me aswell to really go ahead and warn the progamers about it, but if it has to be done, it has to be done. Hating Blizzard for it is sillier than their approach about account sharing.
TOS in europe = illegal Any contract you sign after you have bought something in europe is illegal! No one show me the TOS when i bought it, they only show me when i tryed to play the game. THEREFORE it is ILLEGAL. http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/11/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-eula/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/09/02/the-lawbringer-a-rookies-guide-to-the-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/08/17/the-lawbringer-rookies-guide-to-the-eula-part-2/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/06/21/the-lawbringer-new-battle-net-tou/http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/03/09/the-lawbringer-euro-ver-my-head-contract-law-edition-page-2/Here are some posts I have found in WoWinsider, written by a senior law student, who examines the ToS, EULA and all that good jazz. Especially the last one makes it clear that ToS and EULA for Europe is binding aswell, as there are different EULA and ToS for both versions, though almost practically same (with some small differences) as the author has said. It is about World of Warcraft, but I don't think it would be really different from SC2, as both of them involve Battle.net accounts. Different countries, different laws. Have you even read what I've posted? Didn't need to. Would think it's common knowledge that different countries have different laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
