Forgive me for being naive, what is the advantage of having/creating a bot for you to play for you in World of Warcraft, also, what exactly does that mean in actuality. Does it mean someone cooks up some computer program to literally play the game for that person. Sooo, it will do all the walking, running, fighting, buying items and completing quests, etc, etc. Hence that person do not have to physically sit in front of the computer to play the game. Or is it suppose to automate some functionality during the game play process??

And what advantages does one gain by doing something like this. Does it help the player to max out their level caps faster.

It means that WOW is so fucking boring(as most MMO's are) that it's more interesting if you let the computer play for you outside of various special quests that take hours of grinding to get to.

The justification you asshats are using is that a judge has ruled in an obviously wrong manner, therefore it's right. Slavery was legal, ruled legal on many occasions. Segregation was legal, ruled legal on many occasions. The barring of various classes from voting and other rights considered basic has been legal, ruled so on many occasions. That's just in this country, let alone erroneous and immoral rulings in the rest of the world.

Get a clue.

HG, Blizzard will let you ship the game to either them or the retailer you got it from at your expense. Your costs in obtaining it are not refunded, only the purchase price. Violating a contract makes the party in breech liable for more than just returning their payment. I'm not paying $20 to not own a $50 game. Notification of a license is not acceptance of a contract. I have to actually read and agree to it before sale, not just be told there is one.

Willy, Blizzard loses the option of not agreeing to sell their product when they sell it. Further, if you really think shutting down the servers with customers still on the hook wouldn't get them a class action law suite dangerous enough that they'd settle out of court in a heartbeat, you're very naive. They wouldn't have to do it on day one, the game is still being sold now. Even a year after release would have cost them a bundle.

You can't buy contracts, you have to agree to them. It's the whole point of having contract law, to protect the consumer from assfuckers like EA.

psychoak - You're missing the point. Whether or not any particular person agrees with the rulings or not, they are valid until overturned by a higher court or undercut by a change in legislation. I'm not saying this ruling is right or not, I'm saying it's LEGAL. Big difference.



I've seen Slinkies that were less circular than that argument. Blizzard NEVER agreed to sell the game, so they can't lose the option of not agreeing to sell their product when they sell it. If you mistakenly assumed you bought the game, that's not their fault. They've taken every action reasonably available to them to prevent such an assumption on your part.

And as I said previously, if the servers went down overnight, you'd have cause for action. If they stopped selling new copies and publicly announced the servers were shutting down 60 days in advance, I don't think they'd have a problem.

As an example, it's very likely the Hellgate: London servers will be shut down before the game hits the one year mark. AFAIK they're still selling new copies, so maybe not - but a horribly unprofitable game cannot be forced to stay online at a continual expense to the developers.

I'm not missing the point. I am not at the whim of a judge. Judges have no right to remake the law, I do not recognize their interpretations when they are obviously wrong. I will go to jail before I bend to such. It is an illegal ruling done by a judge violating his oaths of office. He should be stripped of his office and charged with treason for failing to uphold them. If things get bad enough, I'll be one of the nuts knocking them off before I become one of the sheep letting my government shear me.

Since you aren't even being marginally reasonable I'm ignoring your utter fucking idiocy in saying Blizzard never agrees to sell their product when they sell it. How did you even write that?

Judges remake and reinterept the law all the time. Why do you think GW Bush and his cronies are trying to stack the SC ???

I'd watch out before calling something 'utter fucking idiocy'

FAIL!

All the while, those of us with a first grade reading level will continue to ignore them.

But what becomes of us who attained 'first grade reading level' way back in 1959....only to go on to 'slightly' higher levels?....

How about the times when "activist judges" change the country for the better? Separate But Equal was not struck down by an act of Congress, but by judges. Miranda rights were mandated by judicial fiat. So were abortion rights, and about a thousand other things you take for granted. But when one ruling goes against what *you* consider right you want to charge the guy with treason (not possible, read the damn Constitution sometime) and start "knocking them off"? It's a federal crime to even threaten that, so I'll assume you aren't serious.



From the MDY v Blizzard decision we are discussing:



I wrote it because I was paraphrasing the stance Blizzard holds and the court upheld. Clearly Blizzard never had the intention of "selling" anything, only "licensing" it.

I'm sure Jonnan001 will say I'm quoting that out of context, but I didn't feel I needed to quote a page and a half of the decision to illustrate my point.

An 'Activist Judge' that notes that the constitution prevents a law from being legal *isn't* an activist judge. The term gets thrown around a lot, it typically means exactly that though - the judge found a constitutional argument *I* disagree with.

That's not the case here - the judge is ignoring the plain text reading of the UCC which all the states in the district have signed on to, *and* ignoring the plain text reading of the copyright act, and is not overturning them based on the argument that they are overruled by a higher legal doctrine - he's simply saying the definitions are meaningless.

Most interestingly Willy posts that he's agreeing with Blizzards arguments - except going into the case, Blizzard never *made* this argument - The judge came up with this on his own, which is not something I thought was allowed here, but that's outside of my field of study, so I can't say that with certainty. But the fact is that Blizzard never advanced the argument, and thus the defense lawyers never had the opportunity to counter the argument.

And I have no idea where you are going with this



I mean - under *regular* UCC practices, something like an EULA completely fails to meet the minimal standards of a contract - that kind of contract is *only* feasible under title II, so, if it's not a title II issue, you're not bound, and if it *is* a title II issue, then as a non-merchant, you're not bound. That's kinda the whole point of UCC Title II.

In any case - I never expected something this obvious to be an endurance marathon - You kept saying plain text readings were wrong, I got more detailed, you complained the plain text was still wrong, I got more detailed, and now you're complaining that your eyes glaze over at the size of the post.

Here's to hoping this gets overturned - I personally, am not looking forward to living in WillyWorld where he believes for some reason that it's a good thing worth fighting to the death for to make sure people have no enforceable rights under the UCC or copyright, no matter what the law says.

For myself - I donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I mean, I was going to depend on Willy to help defend us, but I don't think I want to leave my rights in his hands.

Jonnan

Yes They Are illegal because they are not made on license of game vendor... and nor are supported...

Willy said:



I'm sorry, but this really flies in the face of common sense. I understand completely the idea that when I buy a copy of WoW or any other piece of software, I don't "own" the software but rather a license to use it. However, to say that I don't own the physical medium on which the software is encoded seems a bit absurd on its face. Does that mean that Blizzard or EA can send people to my house to confiscate my CDs/DVDs because the companies still own the physical media on which their software has been encoded? By the same token, do I not "own" the printed manual or insert that came in that box? I don't mean that I have ownership of the text or photos in that manual as intellectual property; I mean that I have ownership of the book itself. How far is one willing to go with this argument? Because the case could be made that anything having anything remotely to do with third-party intellectual property is owned by the IP owner under all circumstances. I don't own any of my DVD movies or my books?

I'm tellin' ya here and now: Simon and Schuster, Bantam, and HarperCollins better not come to my house and try to take my books, 'cause I'll go all NRA on their asses!

Jonnan001 - If I'm reading your post #236 correctly, the main reason you contend EULAs are nonbinding is that you must directly agree to the contract AND communicate that agreement to the other party. Is this a fair statement?

Second, how would you define an affirmative response, and how you would define communication in this context. Must a physical signature be applied to a paper contract with both parties (or their representatives) physically present? Are verbal contracts with witnesses and/or records valid? Is an electronic agreement similar in nature to a verbal agreement made over the phone?

Recently (as in, last week) I purchased WoW. I "signed" the EULA on Sunday, about 10:30 AM. During the registration and account set up, I transmitted my name, address, phone number, email address, and payment information as part of the same process which began with accepting the EULA/TOU. That personally identifying information, as well as the time and date at which I agreed to the EULA/TOU contracts, are permanently linked in Blizzard's records with the serial number of the copy of the game I purchased the license to. In what way does this process not constitute a provable acceptance to Blizzard's contract?

As to Blizzard never contending full ownership of all materials, bullshit. They entered the EULA containing the quoted text as part of their evidence, specifically as exhibit 21, in support of their statement of fact. While Blizzard never directly asserts ownership of each copy, they consistently assert that users purchase license to use the game, not a copy of the game itself.

And for your hope this gets overturned, you may well be right. In my estimation you are not; either way we'll see at the end of September/beginning of October.

It does seem rather extreme, but asserting ownership of all copies and licensing their use is the only legal method a company has to defend rights they believe are theirs without giving users access to a section 117 defense.

As to a forcable confiscation, at a glance I would say no, unless they can prove you have broken the EULA. You are licensed to use them, and you must have physical possession of them to use them. It IS within their power to require you to return them to the company after installation, but that would likely prove a logistical nightmare far beyond any possible benefit they could get out of it.

Your collection of books, CDs and DVDs are safe from this ruling. They lack any sort of licensing agreement, so you do in fact own these copies. You have a valid section 117 defense.

If the thought of EA or Blizzard owning the discs, books, etc freaks you out, you will shit yourself when you realize this ruling could also give them claim to your hard drive! Yes, there is a copy of their property there, and according to this ruling (and others), they own it. Whether that gives them claim to your entire hard drive, or only the sectors the game is stored on is a pretty trivial concern after that. And what happens if I have more than one company's games on my hard drive? Do they all own it, or only specific parts of it?

Despite what Jonnan001 says, I am not arguing which side I think is *right* in this case, only what I believe the law says is right. I have my personal beliefs, but you won't find them here.

The basics of an contract (Strictly speaking, the writing on the paper is the 'agreement'. The *contract* is the agreement, plus all legal responsibilities that are implied, i.e. your state may guarantee a warranty and such, fraud clause, et al. Close to, but not quite interchangeable):
Offer - Some one offers you a good or service
Acceptance - I choose to take them up on it
Mutual Assent - We've verified that both understood the terms we were agreeing too.
Capacity - I am an adult, not drugged, etcetera
Consideration - We exchanged goods, services, money et al
Legality - Nothing was agreed to in violation of the law.

Now, what we're talking about here is an either/or situation:
Either the EULA is bound up with the sales contract, when we pay the store to buy it over the counter, and accepted when we install,

Or the EULA is a separate contract, accepted separately when we install the software.

The problem is that under either of these, it has problems meeting the defintion of a contract.

It is only fair to note that the TOS when you sign up for an account may or may not have these issues - I'm arguing solely about the EULA included with the software - although the EULA being invalid probably impacts the TOS when you create a server account, that *is* actually a different contract, and probably a valid, or in large part valid contract under the UCC.

But, back to basics - if the EULA is a part of (modification of) the sales contract, the fact that you were informed of it when you bought it, but did not actually see it, may invalidate it as a contract, depending on the exact terms of the EULA, and whether you are an expert (merchant) or a non-expert (consumer) in the field. Under UCC 2, you *can* be bound by this kind of modification to the sales contract, but you actually have to be made fully aware of it at the time - you can't have mutual assent, if you are not aware of what you are assenting to.

Now - this is where a merchant and a consumer are judged differently (Remember, for UCC purposes, a 'merchant' is anyone that has expertise in the product being sold), because as an expert in the field, it is assumed that a merchant is aware of industry standard clauses despite having never seen the contract or read it. A farmer knows the contracts when he sells to the grain mill, the computer programmer knows the standard clauses on what is legal uses of a compiler.

So, for someone that works in that field to claim he's not bound by the EULA, he has to prove that it's trying to utilize a clause that's not normal, which is fairly hard to do - unless it's just a weird, out there clause, a photographer buying photoshop is probably bound buy the EULA, whether he read it or not.

That's not the case with a 'consumer - the consumer is presumed not to be an expert in 'industry standard clauses' - if he buys something with a modification to the sales contract, he's supposed to be informed at the time - before money changes hands, and he has to actually sign off on it - because he's not an expert, he's protected from agreeing to things without knowing what he agreed to.

So, if the EULA is a modification to the sales contract, it makes a lot of difference whether or not the UCC recognizes me as a merchant, or a consumer, and even whether or not the terms of the EULA are arguably 'standard' terms.

The other possibility is whether the EULA is a separate contract. There are two major problem with that. The first is that it is easier for either a consumer or a merchant to accept a sales contract, than for anyone to get locked into a formal, non-sales contract.

By design, UCC 2 streamlines the concept of a contract because who want's to bring a lawyer to buy a loaf of bread? They streamline it further between 'merchants' to allow for standard terms etcetera, so farmers can sell wheat to a silo without messing around with arguing everything out point for point.

So, is it's *not* a sales contract, there is a very big question about trying to prove Offer, Acceptance, and Mutual Assent - Some states require a Notary Public notarize the document. But that's actually not the biggest problem.

If it's a separate contract, where is the consideration? You can modify the sales contract without consideration being passed back and forth, but if this is a separate contract - then there has to be separate consideration, or it *can't* be a contract.

If I bought the CD, and I own the CD for purposes of making a copy, then I don't receive anything more from Blizzard for having accepted the EULA when I installed - I already had that right. They have to give me something above and beyond that, or they hove no more standing to sue me for using that product anymore than I can sue someone for failing to buy me a gift, even though they promised to do so.

So, if it's a sales contract, UCC 2 steps in and give me some protection, if it's not a sales contract, it's almost impossible to rule it as a valid contract at all.

And that's why I think this can and should be overturned - Jonnan

I get what you're saying, and have for some time. The sticking point is right here:



Your 'consumer' fails to meet the reasonable person test. EULAs have been around for quite some time, long enough for a reasonable person to know of their existence. Furthermore, notice of that EULA is given on the box, as well as where the text of the agreement can be found so a person could read it before purchase. If a consumer doesn't take the steps of noticing the box label (which is rather noticable) and reading the EULA before purchase, they are choosing to be willfully ignorant of the terms. Not knowing the terms is quite a bit different from choosing not to know. There is existing case law (I'm way too tired to find it for you, google it yourself or I'll do it tomorrow) which struck down EULAs without notice on the box, or ones that didn't require the consumer to actively click 'I agree'.

From what I understand of your objections, the only way to meet them would be to force the consumer to physically sign the EULA before purchase, which is impractical for any number of reasons.