Slashdot Mirror
EULA Confusion w/ Used Copies of WoW?
They keep telling me they will not transfer an account. I keep telling them I do not want an account transferred, but want to create my own account. What appears to be the final answer is that 'an authentication key can only be used once, regardless of the number of owners.'
This is not stated anywhere in the EULA or Terms of Use. If it is, I have been unable to find it, and *Blizzard has repeatedly ignored my request that they identify where in the EULA or Terms of Use this is stated.*
I have the complete retail package, including the CD case with the Authentication Key. So what if it is has been used in the past? Whatever happened to the first-sale doctrine?
At one point, the Blizzard representative likened my request to buying an empty milk jug and returning to the store to demand more milk for free so I can use the jug. This is an incredibly inept analogy. What Blizzard is doing is allowing only the original purchaser of the jug to buy a refill; anyone else who happens to buy or be given the jug is prohibited from buying more milk to put in it.
Another item of interest is that the representative told me that they can not, for any reason, delete an account, not even at the account owner's request. The most they can do is to suspend the account. Unfortunately, that keeps a record of the Authentication Key in their system, preventing that key from ever being used again.
While the EULA expressly permits permanent transfer of ownership of the game to another person, nowhere does either the EULA or
the Terms of Use mention that such a transfer makes the game completely useless because Blizzard will not allow the new owner to use the game; the game cannot be played without an online account and a subscription to the service, and Blizzard
will not even allow the account to be created.
You might say the "easy" answer is to get the seller to give me the account info for the account he created. However, according to Blizzard's representative, not all of the original
account information can be modified. In fact, enough would be unchangable that the original owner of the account would be able to regain control of the account at any time, should he
desire to do so.
I had no expectation that a used copy of the game would be such a problem. After all, even all of Blizzard's previous games (Warcraft 2, Starcraft, BroodWar) had keys that could be used and passed on while maintaining the reasonable restriction that only one instance of the key could be used
at any one time. (I have never bought or played Warcraft 3, so I do not know about it.) In fact, I bought my copy of Starcraft used and never had any trouble with it.
I am not trying to cheat Blizzard out of anything. I *want* to pay them for a monthly subscription so I can play the game, but they will not allow it solely because at some point in the past someone else has used what is now my copy of the game.
So here's a warning to everyone out there; be very careful if you are thinking about buying a used copy of World of Warcraft. You may have a complete and legitimate set of all the game materials, but you will not be able to play it.
For all the lawyers, and the many IANALs, out there, what do you think of the chances of a lawsuit succeeding to change Blizzard's stance on this? Would anyone else be interested in taking this on with me?"
A question that comes to mind is whether the seller fulfilled all three parts of the Termination clause, section 5 of the EULA. If the seller failed to notify Blizzard of intention to terminate, it could be argued that the seller's licenses remain in effect and thus new license could not be given to the buyer of the used game. But one would hope Blizzard's customer service would at least make this clear to the buyer.
Maybe Blizzard just never expected anyone to RTFEULA.
:)
3B. You may permanently transfer ownership of the Game and all parts thereof, and all of your rights and obligations under the License Agreement, to another by physically transferring the CD-ROM, all original packaging, and all Manuals or other documentation associated with the Game, and by removing from all of your home or personal computers and destroying any remaining materials concerning the Game in your possession or control, provided the recipient agrees to the terms of this License Agreement. The transferor (i.e., you), and not the Licensor, agrees to be solely responsible for any taxes, fees, charges, duties, withholdings, assessments, and the like, together with any interest, penalties, and additions imposed in connection with such transfer.
It appears that you can indeed sell your game, provided you removed anything related to the game, which I think, includes the deactivation of the Authentication Key by the seller, maybe they haven't created the Deactivation Section yet
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
As I understand it, Blizzard representatives cannot cancel any user's account even with their consent. However, it is possible to cancel one's account through the online account management site. Would cancelling your account in this way 'free up' the authentication key? If so, is it the previous owner's responsibility then to delete their account?
Assuming this is the case, then if the previous owner didn't delete their account, they have effectively ripped you off.
...a discussion about EULAs came up in the thread with the Microsoft guy. My contention then was some legal dept wrote it a decade ago and much of it is boilerplate the no one reads. You're just providing an example for my argument.
:-)
In this case, it wasn't YOU that didn't read it, it was the Blizzard guys. EULAs have gotten out of hand. Many of them have language in there that doesn't pertain to anything related with the product at all. It is in there because no one wants to pay the lawyer another couple hours of billing time to review any modifications.
You are SOL and your only real option is to get your money back from where you bought the game. If you do decide to hire a lawyer and go after Blizzard, expect to pay the lawyer 1000x the difference in the used/new prices of the box -- and probably not get anywhere.
It would be fun, though, if I won the lotto. Blizzard has proven themselves nothing but a bunch of dicks over their treatment of FreeCraft/Ale and the alternative server networks. I'd love to have the money to fuck them over with their own legalese.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
What makes him so damn special is that he is following the License Agreement to the letter. Blizzard fucking told him he could do this, and then when he tried to they ignored the issue and gave him a round about analogy that does not apply to his situation, much like your windows + cd key analogy.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
If they refuse, take them to small claims court. 75% probability that they will fix the problem as soon as they get served. If not, then they won't show up and you will win the retail price by default.
Have you tried contacting the EFF? My hunch is they're looking for a test case.
Blizzard's customer service tends to be shaky at best, however you can get a new CD-key. Blizzard has a system in place to deal with stolen CD-keys. Treat this as a situation where you CD-key was stolen or non-functional. Do not tell them anything about wanting to transfer ownership of a CD-key. Keep it simple and tell them only what they need to know. Blizzard honestly doesn't care about what their EULA or packaging says. They do things their way and if the package promised something that wasn't in the game they will tell you tough luck.
l 0641p
#1) I recently purchased a copy of World of Warcraft
#2) When I try to sign up for an account the CD-key says it is already used
#3) I have the original CD-case with the CD-key sticker on it and read on your site I can mail them in to get a new CD-key
Remember the Diablo II players are famous for their acts of stupidity. They regularly get their CD-keys and accounts stolen. So if you just play the dumb "It says someone else has my CD-key and I don't know why" and then cite their CD-key replacement policy they should do it for you. If they tell you to return it to the store just tell them "the store doesn't take returns" and "it was the only copy I could find."
You may not be too keen on deceit, but honestly this is the only way blizzard will do anything. While they are fine about jerking around people who buy used copies of the game they will be much less eager to screw over someone who they think bought a new copy of the game that doesn't work.
More information about the process:
http://www.blizzard.com/support/?id=aal
This is definitely one of the stupidest posts Slashdot has ever seen....
;) By the way, you do not get free refills of the jug if you are the original owner. Not unless you pay for a lifetime of free re-fills. Again, the original poster is just for lack of a better word, insane.
If you check the terms of use page linked in the OP, you can plainly see near the top:
1. Establishment of Your World of Warcraft Account.
A. You may establish one (1) user account ("Account") with which to play World of Warcraft by accessing Blizzard Entertainment's proprietary on-line service ("Service"), pursuant to the terms, conditions and restrictions contained in this Agreement.
as well as section 1-E:
E. Blizzard Entertainment does not recognize the transfer of Accounts between individuals.
I don't see how this person has any right whatsoever to have a new account registered for a CD key that already has an account registered with it.... it just doesn't make ANY sense. By that train of thought, one person could buy the game then hand it along to every person he knows, letting each new person register a new account and bypassing the purchase price of the game itself.... no sense whatsoever.
I do think relating it to buying a milk jug and expecting free refills on an empty jug is pretty funny though.
I stopped buying Blizzard games for this reason. I still like StarCraft though - but after they shutdown FreeCraft and/or the Battlenet server project, I made myself a promise to never give them another cent.
Slashdot is certainly a place to be heard - but sometimes you have to make a statement with your wallet.
I would FU*(#@$_ING love to see a boycott of Blizzard -
The right to transfer ownership of the tangible expression of a copyrighted work is fundamental to our system of intellectual property ownership: 17 U.S.C. sec. 109 (2000). I don't quote this provision to suggest that Blizzard is breaking the law, simply that the right to alienate (essentially a fancy legal term for "sell") your copy of a copyrighted work is enshrined in United States law (and in fact, is generally recognized throughout the world).
So what is Blizzard doing here? It is denying the initial purchaser of the game the right to sell his or her copy (who am I kidding? His) copy of the game in the open marketplace. The initial purchaser of the game agreed to Blizzard's End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) when he first started playing. (Of course, the legal enforceability of these EULAs is somewhat murky -- different states have different laws, although UCITA is the most common attempt to make EULAs enforceable.) Blizzard's argument is that it and its customer entered into an enforceable contract. Both sides gave consideration and both sides agreed to perform certain actions and to give the other side certain rights in exchange for either money or a service provided.
Now Blizzard (at least according to the poster) is attempting to renege on its side of the bargain, while still (presumably) insisting that the purchaser abide by all terms and conditions.
A couple of additional thoughts:
First, don't argue with front-line customer service. Get in touch with Blizzard corporate headquarters or other supervisory personnel. Recognize that, while you are probably correct, it's likely an issue of first impression under the new WoW system and as a pioneer, you're likely to get a slow response.
Second, make sure that the initial owner of the game took the proper steps to terminate his account before he sold it to you.
Third, recognize that Blizzard is perfectly correct to be suspicious of someone claiming that, simply because you have the key, it should terminate an existing account. Respect their view on this because it's a world of hurt for them if they wrongly start terminating accounts. I can easily foresee them asking someone five times "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS ACCOUNT? ARE YOUR SURE YOU'RE SURE?" and then getting a complaint the next day that their account isn't working. They really are in a no-win situation.
Fourth, while yes, I am a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. Nothing in this post should be construed as providing legal advice.
Finally, Blizzard needs to get on the ball and recognize when they are wrong. This sounds like a cluck-up. (But then again, first line support people aren't supposed to be interpreting legal documents.) I'm guessing this is more a matter of getting this issue in front of someone with the authority to make it right.
So, according to this logic, if my computer dies and I buy a new one I should not be able to install my very expensive software on this new computer? That isn't a good idea. There is no way I will pay a few hundred dollars for software and not be able to install it if I ever get a new computer. The lifespan of modern computers isn't that high. People upgrade their computers way too much for a scheme like this to work.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
You should have told them that you bought a new copy of WoW, and the key is used...goddamn pirates and their keygen programs....
ProCD v. Zeidenberg considered a transaction between sophisticated parties, not the unwitting consumer to which I am referring. The software in question in that case was subject to a license to which, even the court notes, the puchaser was aware of the general terms.
The court in that case, rightly, did not examine it in terms of a consumer purchase, but rather a purchase for resale. A quick visit to Shepards will provide a litany of cases which have elaborated on distinctions such as these.
I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
The parent poster is correct, of course; the test case for shrinkwrap has come and gone (clickwrap may or may not be a different story, see, e.g., Specht v. Netscape, 306 F.3d 17, and subsequent cases). I don't have any mod points at the moment, so I'll merely chime in.
(IAALS, and ProCD is just about Day 1 of intellectual property law. Rather irresponsible post, especially as IP is not among your areas of practice, according to your firm's site.)
no matter how much you or blizzard or vivendi want, a contract/eula cannot circumvent state or federal law. just because blizzare or vivendi desire the jurisdiction to be los angeles doesnt mean it circumvents state or federal law which states it might be elsewhere.
same reason why an EULA can't force you into indentured servitude to blizzard/vivendi.
Actually, I get the idea this system of suspending accounts rather than deleting them is commonplace with these MMORPGs. This certainly isn't unique to Blizzard and WoW.
... but she simply had billing xferred to a new card and re-activated her game, and kept on playing.
I understand the reasoning behind it, but it can cause some irritating situations too.
EG. My ex-wife was a big Shadowbane addict for a few months preceding our divorce. She was using an account I created initially. (I'm the one who bought the game, played it for about 30 minutes, and decided I didn't like it after all. I let her try it, and she got hooked immediately - and begged me to buy her a 3 month subscription after that.) The interesting thing is, though, I couldn't seem to find any way to get Ubisoft to permanently erase her account after she moved out. I was able to sign on to the web site and deactivate the account, so she couldn't keep billing renewals to my credit card
Somehow, it doesn't seem right I wasn't even able to have her characters deleted on an account she effectively hijaacked from me - and now I still keep getting email notifications about her activities in the game (purchases of expansion sets, tech. support help, etc. etc.).
The court in that case, rightly, did not examine it in terms of a consumer purchase, but rather a purchase for resale.
Judge Easterbrook, who wrote the ProCD opinion, disagrees with you.
"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product." - Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147, another of Easterbrook's opinions for the 7th Circuit.
Hard to get any clearer than that.
A quick visit to Shepards will provide a litany of cases which have elaborated on distinctions such as these.
Shepardizing ProCD reveals rather a litany of cases following Easterbrook's analysis of UCC 2-204, along with a couple of opinions disagreeing on, as far as I was willing to read, other grounds, principally pre-emption, which has zero to do with your argument.
I didn't bother to read all 30 or so supporting opinions because a) they're mostly district courts; b) UCC Article 2 isn't even law in my state, so I have little interest in it; and c) I don't feel like wasting my time.
By referring to the distinction between "sophisticated parties" I presume you mean, e.g., the distinction between consumers and "merchants" as in UCC 2-207. As far as I am aware, the consumer/merchant distinction troubled the Restatement and UCC redactors only as regards the "battle of forms," not the availability of the contract terms.
A consumer is as well able to read a EULA as a merchant, and just as able to return the product if he disagrees with the terms therein. ProCD and its progeny do apply to this situation.
Whether the submitter has a cause of action against Blizzard on the terms of the EULA is, of course, a different story. But this is about nine years too late to be a "test case" in these circumstances.
Indeed. There are games that not only provide the client for free, but give you some free time to try it out before you buy. The only good reason I can think of for doing this myself is that Blizzard knows they have their customer base by the short hairs and that their particular market will bear this kind of fee structure.
And the brethren went away edified.
I think he was referring to the reliance on the fact that the buyer was aware of the presence of the license, and the general nature of its terms. That is why it makes reference to an insurance agent explaining the terms of a policy before it is purchased. In the original post, a buyer suffers under a license of whhich he had no reason to know of the existence or the terms.
Come on... even assuming a purchaser of software does not know there is going to be a license at all (which is silly to begin with), he sure does once it tumbles out of the box. At that point, continuing to use the software signifies his acceptance of its terms. That may not be fair, it may not be nice; but it's the law. See, once again, UCC 2-204 and ProCD.
If you know some special way to get stores to take returns on software, I'd love to hear it.
The mechanics of the purchaser's recourse (perhaps against Blizzard, not the reseller) aren't the point here. A different remedy may even by appropriate, but again that's not the point.
Isn't that the state law point from the start of this thread?
Nope. The point of this subthread, if you will, is that challenging the validity of shrinkwrap EULAs is a done deal. Done.