[quote][quote]A) that a company can use this interpretation of an EULA to render *any* action by their customer 'illegal', regardless of the actual legality of the action itself.[/quote] It only renders copying the software as illegal. [/quote] God I'm getting tired of posting the same shit and walking through the logical conclusions step by step. Okay - for the court to issue a [link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment"]Summary Judgement[/link] the had to a
[quote]It is not your premise, it is common knowledge that everyone who matters went into this conversation knowing already. If that is news to you, you are hardly the educated person you think you are. [/quote] Huh - how strange - I could sworn I went into this entire conversation arguing that the UCC 2 prevented exactly that interpretation. I was granting that premise as an argument showing how overreaching the entire premise was. If this is news to you, you are hardly the lit
[quote]Jonnan, this is a damn silly question, seeing as we have established that the WoW EULA (as well as every other one ever written, AFAIK) specifically grants Blizzard the right to terminate the license for any reason, or indeed no reason whatsoever. The only reason they have to NOT terminate the license is that they are still benefitting from it, whether that benefit is in terms of monthly payments or simply customer goodwill. It gives the customer the same right to end the license. It's a
[quote]Until eulas are declared void, you cannot expect any judge to act like they were completely void. Also, i am still wondering if you know any better alternative to eulas. Do you?[/quote] Umm - following the clearly delineated law of UCC2, just like every *other* merchant? I have yet to figure out why everyone deeply believes that somehow software companies need a contract written to their specification that the consumer can't read before purchase when no other company
Quoting out of order, because this is the most important misunderstanding here - apologies. [quote]If glider has now legal use, why should it be legal?[/quote] You are approaching this backwards - the summary judgment phase *presumes* the program to be legal, because it's assuming there's no likely defense against this argument, and the program has *not* been found to be illegal. If Glider being found to be a legal, non-infringing program was a defense, the judge would have bee
[quote]Glider is a perfectly legal program which in no way in and of itself infringes upon the intellectual property of Blizzard.[/quote] [quote]I dont agree with this. Who is right now? The one who spammed his opinion more often? Or maybe noone can tell without taking a deeper look on how glider was programmed/works. After reading the article in the topic i had the impression that glider indeed violates some law. Who am i(or are you) to fortune tell if th
[quote]Now if only the world would just install me as their Benevolent Kingship I can start the good work.[/quote] Really - just allow me a few years as the head of a malevolent dictatorship, and your benevolent kingship will look *much* better afterwards - Seems to be working for McCain anyway. As an added bonus, you'll get badly needed experience of dodging my sexy but deadly ninja-assassin-gynoids while I'm in charge, which always looks good on a resume. Unless you
[quote]Glider is a perfectly legal program [B]which in no way in and of itself infringes upon the intellectual property of Blizzard[/B].[/quote] I feel that's important enough to bear repeating. [quote]Glider is a perfectly legal program [B]which in no way in and of itself infringes upon the intellectual property of Blizzard[/B].[/quote] [quote]Glider is a perfectly legal program [B]which in no way in and of itself infringes upon the intellectual property of Blizzard[/
[quote]The Copyright does not grant the user the right to connect to any server. It does not grant the user to create a character on a server. Neither does it grant you the right to play a character on any servers. You may run the game...but that does not mean truly playing it.[/quote] Read the postings and become familiar with the case. In order - Consumer buys World of Warcraft client on CD. Consumer owns World of Warcraft CD. Consumer no
[quote]This is yet one more example of the built-in bias against companies in our legal system. Blizzard suing 100,000 individuals for $150 each (assuming the price of the game and several months playing time) could never be a winnable case for them. Suing for losses plus court costs is allowed, but that would raise each of the 100,000 suits to the tens of thousands of dollars each. Any jury likely to award the $150 is unlikely to give Blizzard $20,000 for court costs for one person breaking an
[quote]OK, guys... Beating one's heads together and disagreeing is well and good [and futile] but avoid the personal attacks. There's no place for them here...[/quote] Joke Answer: Sure there is - I had this form and just filled them in. That said: With apologies - I'm very frustrated with the argument that Software Companies have some deep need for a use of contract law that is explicitly designed to *not* be able to do that. If every other
[quote]t would be, if oil had highly flexible price/demand ratios. It takes a big jump in price to cut demand a couple percent, adding a couple percent to the market will create a big drop in the price. When it's a necessary use and you're hosed if you don't buy it, minute supply changes can have massive effects on price, and oil is one of the worst. Just a bill passing congress that lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling would drop futures substantially.[/quote] Um why wou
[quote]Propose a mechanism for a consumer to read and agree to an EULA which would not violate any parts of contract law as you see it. It must also meet the following criteria: A: It must have minimal impact on non-game consumers. Standing in line behind a guy reading an EULA at the checkout is not anyone's idea of fun. B: It should not pose an undue burden on the retailer. Having your local box retailer be responsible for the paperwork of each customer is not an option. Maint
[quote]except that a number of opec members have grossed as much $$ in 6 months during 2008 as they did in the ENTIRE YEAR of 2007. (no, I don't think that's FYs, either. As well, oil from western Asia is set to gross ONE TRILLION $USD this year!) Although I've read from more than one source that the petrochem futures bulls are inflating the prices somewhat, I believe the majority of the blame for US's current inflation problems lies in the scummy Arabian oil barons selling crude for fa
[quote]You can post links to section 117 until your keyboard wears out, it won't change the fact that SECTION 117 DOESN'T APPLY. Sure, you CAN buy a disc and be covered by 117, but the entire point of an EULA is to deny you standing as Owner for expressly that purpose. Physical possession does not constitute ownership. Just because the law says you CAN BUY a copy does not mean you in fact HAVE BOUGHT a copy.[/quote] Yes - the entire purpose of the EULA is to prevent the law as written b
[quote]Certainly ONE of us is having trouble recognizing reality; you haven't convinced me that I'm the one having problems, though. I'm not arguing that the current state of affairs is solely for the benefit of companies. An adverse ruling in this case or, any similar future case, would simply force some policy changes. If current EULA practices are disallowed, you set up two possibilities: all transactions moving online, where the EULA can be signed before purchase and download, or ha
Ah - but most companies, ah, issue dividends. That's the *point* of buying stock. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule. I will concede that I personally don't buy those exceptions - if you buy stocks in a company that doesn't issue dividends and you don't expect it to issue dividends, then really you're just holding the stock till you can find someone dumber than you are to take it off your hands. Unless it's a new company - different rules apply there, but for th
[quote]Actually, I like the ones that are "like that" if by that you mean neo-cons. The ones that typically get vilified over here. The nub of the issue is obviously Iraq which most Europeans think was a golden land where the rivers flowed with chocolate and children laughed and danced and adults sung the praises of the wise old farther Hussein. Obviously the post war planning was absolutely dire. Its a shame the British did'nt have a greater say in that, our experience in N.Ireland and
[quote]. . . and my city is filled with more potholes than ever. Frankly, I'm not certain the government spends the money more wisely than a business would. At least a business can have competition and have incentives to do the job well, and people have the choice to pay more if they want higher quality. The government, on the other hand, has a very bad habit of just giving it to the lowest bidder for the contract, and of course they get what they pay for.[/quote] On the other hand, the
[quote]Oh yea, forgot to mention it, but someone brought it up earlier too and its about victory conditions. If I've got influence victory turned off, the last thing I want is the ability to still flip planets through it. I'm not sure how they could treat the condition so it works when its off, but I suppose if they make it so that behind the scenes its equivalent to every planet having a re-education center or something at the time of colonization. That way influence can still spread until it b
[quote]I don't see it that way. Licensing agreements are necessary to prevent abuses by consumers, as was the case here. Not printing the full EULA on the outside of the box is simply a practical consideration - if you had to stand around in the store reading the EULA before you could purchase a game, how many games would you buy? Of course, the print size necessary to fit the entire agreement on the box would require an electron microscope to read. Not to mention the onus this would put on the
[quote]And I've posted several judicial ruling to illustrate that what you think the law says is not actually what it means. And I look at it more like a company I like not having to take it in the ass from people who think the law only applies to companies. People like you, and psychoak even more so, are the driving force behind the EULAs you despise so much.[/quote] What do you want me to say - you are correct - you can find a bad decision in every district, but those bad decisions wi
I give up - I've posted the links, they plainly say what contracts aren't allowed to do, and people seem to prefer that somebody they don't like got screwed in contravention of the law rather than to consider that this is going to come back to bite them. Sorry y'all - but Willy, Jafo, you and yours are exactly the kind of sheep the corps want. Jonnan
[quote]Lets say it again - a merchant can be bound by terms he didn't see, a consumer can't be bound without signing something (Or an electronic Equivalent).[/quote] [quote]Zeidenberg would have been considered a consumer, not a merchant (that is, if anyone had brought up the topic). At the time of the first purchase, he had not yet formed the corporation to resell the information.[/quote] *Sigh* And I'm *sure* the reason that the argument that he was a consumer was never made
[quote]http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html Took all of 4 seconds to find it by typing in "WOW eula agreement" to the address bar in firefox. Not to mention its listed on the box, as I had said earlier in the thread. Also the TOS link is contained within the EULA page. http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.shtml Since you refused to spend the initial 4 seconds to look up the EULA. heres the link to the TOS as well. The informa
GalCiv2 Forums