Battle.net is spyware?
full name
>Blizzard has the right to send your computer one or more "cookies"
>without any further notice to you (these cookies only retain your user
>preferences) and, Blizzard has the right to obtain certain identification
>information about your computer and its operating system, including
>the identification numbers of your hard drives, central processing unit,
>IP addresses, and operating systems for identification purposes; (iv)
>that, if permitted by local law, Blizzard has the right to obtain "non-
>personal" data from your Internet browsing software in order to make
>certain demographic assumptions regarding the users of Battle.net
>without any further notice to you
Does anyone have more information about that? Any links would be
appreciated. I would like to know exactly what information does
Blizzard steal from my computer.
Christopher Childs
news:6r5onus5cd651c6u7...@4ax.com:
The safe conclusion the last time this issue came up was that only if you
request your information to be transmitted will it ever be sent.
However, the only time you can make this decision would be during the
patching process for the game -- which is usually after you've contacted
battle.net to get the patch, so it probably already has sent specs.
Obviously they have your (probably temporary) IP since you connected to
battle.net, and your OS based on which MPQ archive your version of the
game requested. The cpu ID is probably already disabled and
unrequestable on your system, so you don't exactly have to worry about
that one.
However, I don't believe anyone has actually checked to see if anything
is sent...
Thundercracker
> Does anyone have more information about that? Any links would be
> appreciated. I would like to know exactly what information does
> Blizzard steal from my computer.
As far as I'm aware, Blizzard/bnet does not currently use any sort of
spy method (though I'm quite concerned that they have reserved the
right to do so). They do have a "send non-personal info" option after
each patch, but I think that's as far as they've gone.
Stephen Williams
This certainly does sound daunting, but to the best of my ability to
translate Legalese, it sounds like they're only reserving the right to
get 2 types of data:
1. That which identifies your computer versus the other few million
on the internet.
2. That which checks what sort of websites you browse in order to
help them determine what sorts of things they should advertise in those
banners they have.
Regarding the first type of data, assuming you follow the rules of
Bnet, don't use any hacks or pirated copies of their games, then you
have nothing to fear from being identified, so who cares?
Regarding the second type, you can always clean out your browser
history before you connect if it bothers you that much. You have to
live with their banners one way or the other, why not live with banners
that advertise stuff you like?
full name
>full name wrote:
>>
>> In the Battle.net terms of service TOS, I found this.
>>
>> >Blizzard has the right to send your computer one or more "cookies"
>> >without any further notice to you (these cookies only retain your user
>> >preferences) and, Blizzard has the right to obtain certain identification
>> >information about your computer and its operating system, including
>> >the identification numbers of your hard drives, central processing unit,
>> >IP addresses, and operating systems for identification purposes; (iv)
>> >that, if permitted by local law, Blizzard has the right to obtain "non-
>> >personal" data from your Internet browsing software in order to make
>> >certain demographic assumptions regarding the users of Battle.net
>> >without any further notice to you
> Regarding the second type, you can always clean out your browser
>history before you connect if it bothers you that much.
Are you a sheep? Having to destroy the web site history because
Battle.net will steal it is a pathetic work around. Assuming that is
what they steal.
Sean Keenan
It's not theft when you agree. If you feel it is theft and do not like
them 'stealing', then don't sign up for battle.net. It's an option that
Blizzard generously hands to us.
--
What, you expected something relevant?
full name
>full name at <em...@address.com> said:
>> Stephen Williams <steve.w...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> full name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the Battle.net terms of service TOS, I found this.
>>>>
>>>>> Blizzard has the right to send your computer one or more "cookies"
>>>>> without any further notice to you (these cookies only retain your
>>>>> user preferences) and, Blizzard has the right to obtain certain
>>>>> identification information about your computer and its operating
>>>>> system, including the identification numbers of your hard drives,
>>>>> central processing unit, IP addresses, and operating systems for
>>>>> identification purposes; (iv) that, if permitted by local law,
>>>>> Blizzard has the right to obtain "non- personal" data from your
>>>>> Internet browsing software in order to make certain demographic
>>>>> assumptions regarding the users of Battle.net without any further
>>>>> notice to you
>>
>>> Regarding the second type, you can always clean out your browser
>>> history before you connect if it bothers you that much.
>>
>> Are you a sheep? Having to destroy the web site history because
>> Battle.net will steal it is a pathetic work around. Assuming that is
>> what they steal.
>
>It's not theft when you agree.
I do not agree to theft.
>If you feel it is theft and do not like them 'stealing',
When I want to give you, Blizzard, or the rest of the world something,
I will send you an e-mail or put it on my web site.
> then don't sign up for battle.net.
I didn't ask for that advice. Apparently you do not like me
telling/reminding the world that Battle.net is spyware.
>[Battle.net] is an option that Blizzard generously hands to us.
Battle.net is part of the game, as advertised.
Stephen Williams
>
> "Sean Keenan" <x4ya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >full name at <em...@address.com> said:
> >> Stephen Williams <steve.w...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>> full name wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In the Battle.net terms of service TOS, I found this.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Blizzard has the right to send your computer one or more "cookies"
> >>>>> without any further notice to you (these cookies only retain your
> >>>>> user preferences) and, Blizzard has the right to obtain certain
> >>>>> identification information about your computer and its operating
> >>>>> system, including the identification numbers of your hard drives,
> >>>>> central processing unit, IP addresses, and operating systems for
> >>>>> identification purposes; (iv) that, if permitted by local law,
> >>>>> Blizzard has the right to obtain "non- personal" data from your
> >>>>> Internet browsing software in order to make certain demographic
> >>>>> assumptions regarding the users of Battle.net without any further
> >>>>> notice to you
> >>
> >>> Regarding the second type, you can always clean out your browser
> >>> history before you connect if it bothers you that much.
> >>
> >> Are you a sheep? Having to destroy the web site history because
> >> Battle.net will steal it is a pathetic work around. Assuming that is
> >> what they steal.
> >
> >It's not theft when you agree.
>
> I do not agree to theft.
You agreed to the License, which means you agreed to let Blizzard access
that data they said they could.
> >[Battle.net] is an option that Blizzard generously hands to us.
>
> Battle.net is part of the game, as advertised.
Access to Battle.net, just like use of the /entire game,/ requires that
you agree to the End User License Agreement they provide. See above.
Stephen Williams
It is a pathetic workaround, yes. But if you really care that much
about Blizzard looking at what websites you've visited, it is an
option. Personally I don't care if Blizzard does look at the websites
in my browser, I have nothing to hide.
Furthermore, they said they wanted the data to make "demographic
assumptions regarding the users of Battle.net." Even if they did find
questionable websites in your browser history, they couldn't take legal
action or inform law enforcement agencies because this agreement is not
a warrant for criminal investigation.
D-CYPHER
"Sean Keenan" <x4ya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:alj9th$1pvkoi$2...@ID-131846.news.dfncis.de...
out.
Starcraft/Broodwars, Diablo, D2/LOD, WC2 B-E, and WC3--FREE acess with a
valid CD-Key
WoW they may start charging for access.
D-CYPHER
Romuald Brunet
> > Battle.net is part of the game, as advertised.
> and totally optional.
Of course. How can pirates play the game if it weren't ? ;)
--
Romuald Brunet, ICQ 33033393, http://mog.online.fr
Signature forthcom^W
Graeme Dice
>
> full name wrote:
<snip>
> > I do not agree to theft.
>
> You agreed to the License, which means you agreed to let Blizzard access
> that data they said they could.
>
> > >[Battle.net] is an option that Blizzard generously hands to us.
> >
> > Battle.net is part of the game, as advertised.
>
> Access to Battle.net, just like use of the /entire game,/ requires that
> you agree to the End User License Agreement they provide. See above.
The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
that you have paid for.
Graeme Dice
--
Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
Mortis
em...@address.com says...
> > then don't sign up for battle.net.
>
> I didn't ask for that advice. Apparently you do not like me
> telling/reminding the world that Battle.net is spyware.
I think you've missed out an essential bit of logic.
You may be entirely correct that battle.net fits the dictionary
definition of 'spyware' but then so does winamp most probably. So does
Windows. Point is, just because something fits the description doesn't
necessarily follow that it's a bad thing.
To steer back to the point - do you have any proof that either yourself,
or anyone here for that matter have been negatively effected by using
Blizzard's battle.net service?
--
Mortis
[Insert sig here]
Rakka Rage
> out.
they will not run wow on bnet, but they will charge for wow.
> Starcraft/Broodwars, Diablo, D2/LOD, WC2 B-E, and WC3--FREE acess with a
> valid CD-Key
>
> WoW they may start charging for access.
if you dont understand the difference between a mmorpg and the rest of
the (good) shit blizzard has made or the need to charge for this kind
of service then read the faq
Juliusz 'Julas' Gonera
> Not for long, Blizzard will start charging for Bnet access when WoW comes
> out.
Wow, you almost learned how to answer. I'm impressed.
But you still don't know what are you talking about...
--
_ _ _ _ ___ ___
| || | || | | |( _| Juliusz Gonera | icq64994211 | gg2241702
(__||___||__)|_|_||___) @toya.net.pl
Juliusz 'Julas' Gonera
> The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
> purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
> contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
> that you have paid for.
That's right, so you still have to agree with the license. Nothing can be
done about this... I think so.
Sean Keenan
<ju...@toya.net.pl.nojunk> said:
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
>> The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
>> purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
>> contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
>> that you have paid for.
>
> That's right, so you still have to agree with the license. Nothing
> can be done about this... I think so.
Many places accept returns around here. If you explain it as a rational
adult, they'd accept it. If they don't, they don't deserve your
business. Have you tried emailing Blizzard in request of their EULA?
Maybe they will send you a copy.
At any rate, a no returns policy is not a reason to blame Blizzard for
'forcing' you to accept an EULA.
Graeme Dice
So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
Stephen Williams
>
> Stephen Williams wrote:
> >
> > full name wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I do not agree to theft.
> >
> > You agreed to the License, which means you agreed to let Blizzard access
> > that data they said they could.
> >
> > > >[Battle.net] is an option that Blizzard generously hands to us.
> > >
> > > Battle.net is part of the game, as advertised.
> >
> > Access to Battle.net, just like use of the /entire game,/ requires that
> > you agree to the End User License Agreement they provide. See above.
>
> The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
> purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
> contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
> that you have paid for.
So which part of the license is preventing you from taking the game
back to the store?
Besides, EULAs have been a required part of video games for a very long
time now. Even back before they had pop up windows you had to click on
during install, the EULA was printed in the manual along with the
statement that "using this product means you agree to abide by this
agreement." Or whathaveyou.
This is true of ALL video games, not just Blizzard games. You ought
to know there is such an EULA in the game, and it you don't want to be
bound by things like this, don't buy the game in the first place.
Stephen Williams
>
> Sean Keenan wrote:
> >
> > <insert cute attribution here> Juliusz 'Julas' Gonera at
> > <ju...@toya.net.pl.nojunk> said:
> >
> > > Graeme Dice wrote:
> > >
> > >> The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
> > >> purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
> > >> contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
> > >> that you have paid for.
> > >
> > > That's right, so you still have to agree with the license. Nothing
> > > can be done about this... I think so.
> >
> > Many places accept returns around here. If you explain it as a rational
> > adult, they'd accept it. If they don't, they don't deserve your
> > business. Have you tried emailing Blizzard in request of their EULA?
> > Maybe they will send you a copy.
> >
> > At any rate, a no returns policy is not a reason to blame Blizzard for
> > 'forcing' you to accept an EULA.
>
> So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
> then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
> money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
Like I said before, EULAs like this have been around for a long time.
If you didn't know it was coming, you're a blind fool.
Stephen Williams
> Starcraft/Broodwars, Diablo, D2/LOD, WC2 B-E, and WC3--FREE acess with a
> valid CD-Key
>
> WoW they may start charging for access.
They WILL start charging for WoW. It says so in the FAQ. But I believe
WoW will be run on separate servers, not on Battle.net.
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
> > So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
> > then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
> > money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
>
> Like I said before, EULAs like this have been around for a long time.
> If you didn't know it was coming, you're a blind fool.
It doesn't matter whether they have been around for a long time, it
matters that the terms change after you have purchased the item.
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
> > The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
> > purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
> > contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
> > that you have paid for.
>
> So which part of the license is preventing you from taking the game
> back to the store?
The store policy that returns are not accepted, ever.
> Besides, EULAs have been a required part of video games for a very long
> time now. Even back before they had pop up windows you had to click on
> during install, the EULA was printed in the manual along with the
> statement that "using this product means you agree to abide by this
> agreement." Or whathaveyou.
Yes, and that is a contract where the company is changing the conditions
of the sale and telling you that you must accept such conditions, yet
still taking your money if you don't accept them.
> This is true of ALL video games, not just Blizzard games. You ought
> to know there is such an EULA in the game, and it you don't want to be
> bound by things like this, don't buy the game in the first place.
That is not a valid argument. The EULA has to be agreed to before the
sale or they are changing the terms of the contract without the consent
of both parties.
Simon Nejmann
<grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>That is not a valid argument. The EULA has to be agreed to before the
>sale or they are changing the terms of the contract without the consent
>of both parties.
So ask the store to show you the EULA before you buy the game...
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
AKA Dead_Frog
Graeme Dice
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:38:33 -0600, Graeme Dice
> <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >That is not a valid argument. The EULA has to be agreed to before the
> >sale or they are changing the terms of the contract without the consent
> >of both parties.
>
> So ask the store to show you the EULA before you buy the game...
Doesn't change the fact that they are changing the terms without your
consent.
Stephen Williams
>
> Stephen Williams wrote:
> >
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
> > > then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
> > > money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
> >
> > Like I said before, EULAs like this have been around for a long time.
> > If you didn't know it was coming, you're a blind fool.
>
> It doesn't matter whether they have been around for a long time, it
> matters that the terms change after you have purchased the item.
No they don't. The terms have always been there. You can't read them
until you've purchased the game, but you can always return the game if
you don't like the terms. If you try contacting Blizzard, you might be
able to get a copy of the agreement before you buy the game. I don't
know because I've never tried myself.
Stephen Williams
>
> Stephen Williams wrote:
> >
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
> > > purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it a
> > > contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the product
> > > that you have paid for.
> >
> > So which part of the license is preventing you from taking the game
> > back to the store?
>
> The store policy that returns are not accepted, ever.
>
> > Besides, EULAs have been a required part of video games for a very long
> > time now. Even back before they had pop up windows you had to click on
> > during install, the EULA was printed in the manual along with the
> > statement that "using this product means you agree to abide by this
> > agreement." Or whathaveyou.
>
> Yes, and that is a contract where the company is changing the conditions
> of the sale and telling you that you must accept such conditions, yet
> still taking your money if you don't accept them.
Take. It. Back.
> > This is true of ALL video games, not just Blizzard games. You ought
> > to know there is such an EULA in the game, and it you don't want to be
> > bound by things like this, don't buy the game in the first place.
>
> That is not a valid argument. The EULA has to be agreed to before the
> sale or they are changing the terms of the contract without the consent
> of both parties.
There was no contract before the EULA. The act of exchanging money with
the store you bought it from is between you and the store. The contract
is in the EULA and must be agreed to before you can use the game. If
you don't like that, DON'T USE THE GAME. It's been said about a million
times already, take the damn thing back and ask for a refund. Bring the
receipt, tell them you want your money back. Problem solved.
If the store refuses to refund your money, stop buying games from that
store. Find one that will give you your money back.
Simon Nejmann
<grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Simon Nejmann wrote:
>> So ask the store to show you the EULA before you buy the game...
>Doesn't change the fact that they are changing the terms without your
>consent.
They are not changing the terms. The EULA _is_ the terms!
What you are saying is like saying: "I just bought a car, and then I
found out I need a drivers licence to use it... Now Im mad!!"
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
> > > > then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
> > > > money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
> > >
> > > Like I said before, EULAs like this have been around for a long time.
> > > If you didn't know it was coming, you're a blind fool.
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether they have been around for a long time, it
> > matters that the terms change after you have purchased the item.
>
> No they don't. The terms have always been there. You can't read them
> until you've purchased the game, but you can always return the game if
> you don't like the terms.
Except of course, for the fact that nearly all stores will not accept
returns.
> If you try contacting Blizzard, you might be
> able to get a copy of the agreement before you buy the game. I don't
> know because I've never tried myself.
--
Engineering is the art of the practical and depends more on the
total state of the art than it does on the individual engineer.
When railroading time comes you can railroad -- but not before.
-- Robert A. Heinlein ('The Door into Summer')
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
> > Yes, and that is a contract where the company is changing the conditions
> > of the sale and telling you that you must accept such conditions, yet
> > still taking your money if you don't accept them.
>
> Take. It. Back.
Can't. Future shop accepts no returns of any opened software. Don't
want to. I agreed to what was written on the box when I bought it.
> > That is not a valid argument. The EULA has to be agreed to before the
> > sale or they are changing the terms of the contract without the consent
> > of both parties.
>
> There was no contract before the EULA. The act of exchanging money with
> the store you bought it from is between you and the store. The contract
> is in the EULA and must be agreed to before you can use the game. If
> you don't like that, DON'T USE THE GAME. It's been said about a million
> times already, take the damn thing back and ask for a refund. Bring the
> receipt, tell them you want your money back. Problem solved.
Ahhh. So if a publisher told you that you were not allowed to open a
book on Sunday only after you bought the book you would abide by those
restrictions. I'm glad I understand you.
Here's a new restriction on this message. By reading this sentence you
are agreeing to whatever I happen to bury underneath five pages of
legalese.
> If the store refuses to refund your money, stop buying games from that
> store. Find one that will give you your money back.
And the person is still out $70+.
Graeme Dice
Sean Keenan
said:
> Stephen Williams wrote:
>>
>> Graeme Dice wrote:
>>>
>>> Stephen Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Graeme Dice wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a
>>>>> service, then added extra conditions onto that service after the
>>>>> exchange of money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
>>>>
>>>> Like I said before, EULAs like this have been around for a long
>>>> time. If you didn't know it was coming, you're a blind fool.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter whether they have been around for a long time, it
>>> matters that the terms change after you have purchased the item.
>>
>> No they don't. The terms have always been there. You can't read
>> them until you've purchased the game, but you can always return the
>> game if you don't like the terms.
>
> Except of course, for the fact that nearly all stores will not accept
> returns.
Explain your condition. If they don't accept the return, they do not
deserve your business.
Sean Keenan
said:
> Sean Keenan wrote:
>>
>> <insert cute attribution here> Juliusz 'Julas' Gonera at
>> <ju...@toya.net.pl.nojunk> said:
>>
>>> Graeme Dice wrote:
>>>
>>>> The license is only available for you to agree to after you have
>>>> purchased it (with the standard no returns policy). That makes it
>>>> a contract that you are forced to sign or be unable to use the
>>>> product that you have paid for.
>>>
>>> That's right, so you still have to agree with the license. Nothing
>>> can be done about this... I think so.
>>
>> Many places accept returns around here. If you explain it as a
>> rational adult, they'd accept it. If they don't, they don't deserve
>> your business. Have you tried emailing Blizzard in request of their
>> EULA? Maybe they will send you a copy.
>>
>> At any rate, a no returns policy is not a reason to blame Blizzard
>> for 'forcing' you to accept an EULA.
>
> So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
> then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
> money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
You buy the game. Installing the contents is something different.
Graeme Dice
>
> <insert cute attribution here> Graeme Dice at <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca>
> said:
>
> > Sean Keenan wrote:
<snip>
> > So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a service,
> > then added extra conditions onto that service after the exchange of
> > money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
>
> You buy the game. Installing the contents is something different.
Actually, your real argument should be to quote the stipulation provided
on the top of the box.
Graeme Dice
--
If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood
on the shoulders of giants.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Sean Keenan
said:
> Sean Keenan wrote:
>>
>> <insert cute attribution here> Graeme Dice at
>> <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> said:
>>
>>> Sean Keenan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> So you would accept if I took $50 from you in exchange for a
>>> service, then added extra conditions onto that service after the
>>> exchange of money (signifying your agreement) had taken place?
>>
>> You buy the game. Installing the contents is something different.
>
> Actually, your real argument should be to quote the stipulation
> provided on the top of the box.
What is that?
CE.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > Actually, your real argument should be to quote the stipulation
> > provided on the top of the box.
>
> What is that?
"*Free access to Battle.net requires access to the Internet and
acceptance of the Battle.net Terms of Use Agreement. Player is
responsible for all applicable Internet fees.
The use of software product is subject to the terms of the enclosed End
user License Agreement. You must accept the End User License Agreement
before you can use this product. The World Editor contained in this
product is provided strictly for your personal use. Use of the World
Editor is subject to additional license restrictions contained inside
the product and may not be commercially exploited. Use of Battle.net is
subject to the acceptance of the Battle.net Terms of Use Agreement."
Note that I have no problem with the terms of either the EULA or the
Battle.net agreement, I just wish that licenses didn't keep expanding to
be so unreasonably long. I'm really glad that it's not as long as the
one Microsoft has for their Visual Studio products.
Graeme Dice
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it ?" — Albert Einstein.
Stephen Williams
>
> Stephen Williams wrote:
> >
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Yes, and that is a contract where the company is changing the conditions
> > > of the sale and telling you that you must accept such conditions, yet
> > > still taking your money if you don't accept them.
> >
> > Take. It. Back.
>
> Can't. Future shop accepts no returns of any opened software. Don't
> want to. I agreed to what was written on the box when I bought it.
>
> > > That is not a valid argument. The EULA has to be agreed to before the
> > > sale or they are changing the terms of the contract without the consent
> > > of both parties.
> >
> > There was no contract before the EULA. The act of exchanging money with
> > the store you bought it from is between you and the store. The contract
> > is in the EULA and must be agreed to before you can use the game. If
> > you don't like that, DON'T USE THE GAME. It's been said about a million
> > times already, take the damn thing back and ask for a refund. Bring the
> > receipt, tell them you want your money back. Problem solved.
>
> Ahhh. So if a publisher told you that you were not allowed to open a
> book on Sunday only after you bought the book you would abide by those
> restrictions. I'm glad I understand you.
I would abide by it or I would sell the book and buy a new one.
Fortunately publishers don't do things like that.
> Here's a new restriction on this message. By reading this sentence you
> are agreeing to whatever I happen to bury underneath five pages of
> legalese.
Give me the five pages.
> > If the store refuses to refund your money, stop buying games from that
> > store. Find one that will give you your money back.
>
> And the person is still out $70+.
You live, you learn.
The Blue Raja
news:3D7FF73C...@sympatico.ca...
> > > If the store refuses to refund your money, stop buying games from
that
> > > store. Find one that will give you your money back.
> >
> > And the person is still out $70+.
>
> You live, you learn.
An odd stance to take. Obviously this concept is considered unfair to
consumer, hence consumer affairs departments.
IMO, here's how it should work.
You put a deposit on the product. In this case the deposit is 100% of the
cost, paid to the store.
Before using the product, you must agree to the EULA. If you don't agree,
you can opt out of the contract (as you haven't agreed to it and thus aren't
bound) and reclaim your deposit (from the place of purchase).
Legally, the store shouldn't be able to refuse refunds in this situation as
you hadn't agreed to any contract, and "caveat emptor" isn't popular with
consumer affairs groups.
--
The Blue Raja
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
> > Ahhh. So if a publisher told you that you were not allowed to open a
> > book on Sunday only after you bought the book you would abide by those
> > restrictions. I'm glad I understand you.
>
> I would abide by it or I would sell the book and buy a new one.
> Fortunately publishers don't do things like that.
They tried to a century ago.
Graeme Dice
--
"Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do."
- John Wooden
Stephen Williams
>
> Stephen Williams wrote:
> >
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Ahhh. So if a publisher told you that you were not allowed to open a
> > > book on Sunday only after you bought the book you would abide by those
> > > restrictions. I'm glad I understand you.
> >
> > I would abide by it or I would sell the book and buy a new one.
> > Fortunately publishers don't do things like that.
>
> They tried to a century ago.
Did they really? Wow.
jetluver
> Take. It. Back.
The store. Does not. Accept. Returns. Most. Major Retailers. Won't. What
part. Don't you. Understand?
> There was no contract before the EULA. The act of exchanging money with
> the store you bought it from is between you and the store.
So, if you buy a Ford Mustang from Bob's Dealership, take it home, and take
your family out for a ride... and then the gas tank explodes, killing your
kids. Who is responsible for that? According to your logic, you should sue
Bob because the act of exchanging money was between you and Bob. Ford has no
responsibility for their product? I'm glad you're not an attorney, at least,
not mine.
> The contract
> is in the EULA and must be agreed to before you can use the game.
Not entirely true. You can hack the installer so that the EULA is never
displayed. But even if we were to assume that the EULA was displayed, you
can agree to it and still break its conditions if it violates state or
federal laws. Additionally, there are several workarounds that somebody who
was concerned enough could use:
Blizzard reserves the right to collect and transmit non-personal data from
your computer; don't dispute that, BUT you yourself should reserve the right
to monitor all outgoing transmissions and optionally change the data to a
string of zeros. With the right program, this effectively allows you to
block any data-gathering that is done.
In case Blizzard brings you to court for a violation of the EULA, simply
have a minor press the "I agree" button. If you don't know any kids, pay one
to do it and make sure you get his name and address. If you ARE a kid, even
better. In the United States, minors cannot enter into contracts, and any
contracts that they do enter are null and void. So even though they agreed
to the EULA, they are not bound to it, and since you never agreed to it, you
are not bound to it either.
Graeme Dice
I believe so. Not those exact conditions, but I've heard that they
tried to limit resale and such. Unfortunately I have no hard sources on
this.
Graeme Dice
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
-- Sir Winston Churchill
Mortis
says...
> > No they don't. The terms have always been there. You can't read them
> > until you've purchased the game, but you can always return the game if
> > you don't like the terms.
>
> Except of course, for the fact that nearly all stores will not accept
> returns.
Every decent shop around here have a 10 day policy. You don't like the
game? You've got 10 days to return it.
Game, Gamestation and Interactive Consoles (small importer) spring to
mind.
--
Mortis
[Insert sig here]
Stephen Williams
>
> Stephen Williams <steve.w...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D7F50F4...@sympatico.ca...
> > Take. It. Back.
>
> The store. Does not. Accept. Returns. Most. Major Retailers. Won't. What
> part. Don't you. Understand?
The part where you can't find a store that does accept returns. Maybe
you guys don't have Electronics Boutique down in the States, but up here
in Canada they're a fairly large chain and they do accept returns if you
have a receipt and a plausible story. Even in cases where they won't
accept returns, you can still sell the game back used (for a lower price
obviously).
And before you start whining about losing money in that venture, you
have to remember we're talking about a hypothetical user who is so
disturbed by the EULA as to /want/ to return it. Maybe you can't get
all of your money back, but if you don't intend to use the game, some
money is better than letting it rot on your shelf.
> > There was no contract before the EULA. The act of exchanging money with
> > the store you bought it from is between you and the store.
>
> So, if you buy a Ford Mustang from Bob's Dealership, take it home, and take
> your family out for a ride... and then the gas tank explodes, killing your
> kids. Who is responsible for that? According to your logic, you should sue
> Bob because the act of exchanging money was between you and Bob.
No, because exchanging money is not a liable contract. You couldn't
sue Bob even if you wanted to for something like that because there was
a never a contract saying he could be held liable for sudden gas tank
ruptures. Secondly, defective products are a completely different
subject that we were not discussing here.
The conversation we were having pertained to obscure legal clauses in
the EULA of a game, not to their likelihood to explode unexpectedly and
kill small children. Whether or not a product is likely to explode is a
totally different question than whether or not that product is
"spyware."
Sean Keenan
said:
> Sean Keenan wrote:
>>
>> <insert cute attribution here> Graeme Dice at
>> <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> said:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Actually, your real argument should be to quote the stipulation
>>> provided on the top of the box.
>>
>> What is that?
>
> "*Free access to Battle.net requires access to the Internet and
> acceptance of the Battle.net Terms of Use Agreement. Player is
> responsible for all applicable Internet fees.
>
> The use of software product is subject to the terms of the enclosed
> End user License Agreement. You must accept the End User License
> Agreement before you can use this product. The World Editor
> contained in this product is provided strictly for your personal use.
> Use of the World Editor is subject to additional license restrictions
> contained inside the product and may not be commercially exploited.
> Use of Battle.net is subject to the acceptance of the Battle.net
> Terms of Use Agreement."
>
> Note that I have no problem with the terms of either the EULA or the
> Battle.net agreement, I just wish that licenses didn't keep expanding
> to be so unreasonably long. I'm really glad that it's not as long as
> the one Microsoft has for their Visual Studio products.
I'm rather glad it doesn't contain DRM rights like Windows Security
updates and the rumoured TCPA either.
jetluver
> The part where you can't find a store that does accept returns. Maybe
> you guys don't have Electronics Boutique down in the States, but up here
> in Canada they're a fairly large chain and they do accept returns if you
> have a receipt and a plausible story. Even in cases where they won't
> accept returns, you can still sell the game back used (for a lower price
> obviously).
And what, everyone is supposed to buy games from EB? Don't forget that EB
sells but one thing: computer software. The vast, and I mean VAST, majority
of people who end up buying Warcraft 3 are NOT computer nerds. They only buy
the game because they see it in on the shelves of general retailers like
Best Buy or Wal-Mart.
> No, because exchanging money is not a liable contract. You couldn't
> sue Bob even if you wanted to for something like that because there was
> a never a contract saying he could be held liable for sudden gas tank
> ruptures.
Am I to understand that in Canada you cannot be held liable for
something UNLESS you sign a contract saying that you are? So if you go on a
roller coaster that's made out of toothpicks, but painted to look metallic,
and then the thing collapses and kills everyone on the ride, there is no
legal recourse against the theme park and/or builder because they never
signed a document saying they could be held liable? In the states, we have
something called 'negligence'. You don't need a party's consent to sue them
for it. In fact, negligence allows you to sue parties that, under contract,
were otherwise not liable. In US law the phrase "except in cases of extreme
negligence" implicitly follows every statement of limitation of liability.
It forms the basis for almost every lawsuit against a manufacturer or seller
of defective products. And yes, you most certainly could include Bob in the
lawsuit unless he could prove that he had no knowledge that the parts were
defective.
> Secondly, defective products are a completely different
> subject that we were not discussing here.
> The conversation we were having pertained to obscure legal clauses in
> the EULA of a game, not to their likelihood to explode unexpectedly and
> kill small children. Whether or not a product is likely to explode is a
> totally different question than whether or not that product is
> "spyware."
And what if the spyware causes your computer to explode? Or, more
reasonably, what if the product that you bought contained bad stuff you
didn't want and didn't know you were getting? It's not as different as you
think. My analogy may not have been the best, but all you have to do is
exchange the words and generalize a bit, and viola, basis for a lawsuit. Of
course, I am talking about US law and you are talking about Canada, which I
really know nothing about, so I'll be happy to let you have a closing reply
and we can end this thread.
wogston
> the game? You've got 10 days to return it.
We got 30 days from mail order guaranteed by law here. From a shop, can only
get replacement copy. Different cultures and all that...
-w