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.
Considering how difficult it is right now to find a new copy of WoW this could be a major issue.
For those not in the know, at least for a time, Blizzard pulled from the shelves new copies of WoW and stopped shipping due to server load issues.
I know of more than one person who was unable to get a copy for several weeks because of this.
#include sig.h
One thing left to do: Get your money back from the seller.
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.
I guess the new policy is:
The key IS the game.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
$49.99
Pretty steep for a game you have to pay monthly to play too.
My wife and I would be playing it if it weren't for the $100 initial cost.
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.
New copes of the game can be hard to find. I know that (as recently as last month) Blizzard wasn't moving any more retail copies because the game had become too popular and there were (are?) server issues.
I'm not sure if the poster was unable to find a new copy, or simply wanted to save a couple of bucks. Regardless, it seems like this kind of thing should be legal according to Blizzard's own EULA.
I guess I'm not surprised he's getting the run around from Customer Support, though. IMHO Blizzard has fallen a long way from it's lofty perch before the original owners were bought out..
You're out of luck, because as we all know, EULAs are not legally binding. Thanks for playing! :)
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
First off, it's a $49.99 game. Secondly, the game is not available in stores due to Blizzard's cutting back on new users due to server issues. Considering the lack of availability of the game in stores, a used copy that someone doesn't want after having tried it should still have value.
I for one and sick and tired of software companies bullying their consumers around. I should be able to return software. I should be able to sell software I purchased to other people. I should be able to run games that already have cd-keys for online-only play without requiring that I keep the CD in the drive while playing!
Get a cow. It won't mind if you take an empty milk jug to it and demand more milk from it every day.
Your cow won't judge you.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I'm sorry if I'm asking the obvious here, but would you be willing to mail me a check for $20.00? I mean, you've got a lot of other monthly costs, so it's not like it's that much money.
=)
How hard can it be? Okay you buy a "used" CD so they don't give you a month's free subscription but force you to pony up $19 immediately.
Even if you assume that this guy just pirated a copy of WOW that's pure revenue to them for each new user.
What's to gain by binding one key to one CD? You want to bind it to one PAYING USER.
Somebody hasn't thought this through and just threw the usual boiler plate out into the EULA and said "ship it!"
Can you march down to your local courthouse and file a small claims lawsuit? Your argument seems pretty solid. They would probably give in to avoid the lawsuit that might cost them thousands.
This seems like the perfect test case for the enforceability of a shrinkwrap EULA in the hands of an ordinary consumer. Previous cases have observed that, where portions of the game require additional "agreement" clicks, such licenses can be enforced, but I have not found any case yet which states that the individual purchasor is bound by a eula he is unable to read until after the sale.
There have been cases which indicate that software licenses in general are just fine, even if they limit rights granted under ordinary copyright law. What does not appear to have been examined is whether these license agreements fall into the realm of state contract law. If such were the case, then different states might have different consumer protection rules.
But then again, I am not your lawyer, and this is just an observation, not legal advice. If you like, feel free to contact me. You can find out how in my profile.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Blizzard should try to get this fixed fast. Unlike most other types of games, where all the money the developer will realize is paid up front, most of the money from MMORPGs is made over the long run. By making it harder to transfer CD-keys, Blizzard is depriving themselves of the monthly fees that the user would otherwise already be paying: $20-$50 up front vs. $10-$13 a month... after a little while, the price paid at retail starts to seem pretty small, especially since many players get hooked and have difficulty quitting.
Actually, you don't want free milk in the jug your friend gave you, you want to *pay* for the milk, you just don't want to pay for the jug.
I think the solution to all of this stupidity is for the bozon game companies to stop charging an up-front purchase price for games that require a subscription.
Why don't they also charge a "disposal fee" when you cancel for crying out loud.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Hah.
Every MMO launched to date has a single-shot CD-key used to create an account. That means that the used game is worthless. The CD is unprotected and the contents are fairly easily obtainable. Only thing worth anything is the CD-Key, and that's good for only one use.
Yes, you could sell the game AND the account, but in WoW's case this is forbidden by EULA. You can whine all you want, but if they somehow allowed the re-use of the CD-Key, that would allow basically unlimited accounts out of one box. And whoever controls the account can play the game - box not required.
Don't buy used MMOs (returned/repackaged/'slightly used'). Any store with half a brain don't take returns of MMOs as once the key has been digged out of the box and copied down, the rest of the box/CD/Etc is quite worthless. CD-Key theft out of boxes in store shelves is a growing problem - many clueless salesdroids dont understand how the bunch of numbers on the paper is the only valuable bit of the game box, so if you buy an opened box, you risk getting a dud that may be painful to return. How do you prove you didn't use the key yourself?
Now is selling of such 'one-shot' products fine, trampling on the 'first sale' principle? That's whole another discussion. WoW is doing it just like every other game in the genre. And just about every single other game forbids sale of accounts. Others allow the sale of account + box together (only), but such trades are high-risk.
For example, in Dark Age of Camelot, whoever knows the 'secret word' inputted at character creation can at any time take ownership of the account (change PW, change any other details) by calling game billing support hotline. So even if you get the CDs, the box, the (worthless) CD-key, the user account and the password, if you don't know that you ALSO need a secret word (and you need to change it promptly by calling the company), your account can be taken back by the original owner, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Blizzard is just taking the easiest route - if you your account/password ends up in wrong hands, they wash their hands. Sale of accounts is not allowed, and basically whoever controls the username/PW 'owns' the account, and if you complain about account sale/trade issues, they just ban the account as account sales are not allowed. And yes, the box, the CD-Key and the media is totally useless and worthless once the account has been created.
...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.
If it only makes sense that the key can only be used once, why does blizzard go out of there way to explicitely state in the EULA that the physical media can be resold?
1. Imagine this from Blizzard's point of view. Someone calls up with your story. What do you think their position will be? Software companies must defend their best interests, and willfully going along with any request and any likely story could open them up to all kinds of abuses.
2. I may be wrong, but I don't think the lack of mention of something in a EULA implies that the buyer has such a usage right.
3. A lawsuit for such a small amount seems a little bit of an overreation. I would discuss it with the seller and see if he/she is willing to refund your money, and if not (and I would hardly expect it), just chalk it up as a lesson learned. I'm not sure how old you are, but I've lived long enough to know friends who have learned far more expensive lessons than this. I agree that it sucks, but consider yourself lucky to some extent.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Simple.
The distributor gets the cash out of the box sales.
If accounts were free, or available from online, there would be no distribution of the box version. No distributor wants to touch a game that is available online cheaper (or even at same price, but 'easier').
And stupid people won't consider games they can't buy as a box from a store. No store visibility = way less subscribers.
Only when the game is dead as a doorknob as 'store boxed version', the sale / giveaway of accounts beings.
Basically they are feeding Vivendi Universal or whoever handles the distribution. VU has to get mucho money, so VU can be bothered to put the game on shelves, on magazine pages etc.
Yes, the whole store/boxes/crap model is outdated. I'd happily pay real money for games if I could actually download them at launch day, instead of waiting for ages for the stupid boxes to ship and arrive to stores. I paid for HL2, mostly because they allowed this. Yeah, steam is 'bad' or 'crappy' or whatever, but at least it works. I got the game on launch day, not a week late (hint: I don't live in the US), and I got it at a same price as the US customers got (no extra taxes, duties, shipping costs and other crap).
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.
You must not have read the whole post. What is utterly ridiculous here is how Blizard is not abiding by their own EULA.
Say you bought WoW and decided you really didn't like it, so you sold it to your friend. Assume no copies made and everything is done according to the EULA. You have no intention of playing again, and your friend wants to use your old copy to play himself. When he activates his, your account should be disabled. Problem solved.
What is happening here is like the RIAA saying you can buy the CD from the store, when you are done with it you can sell it to a friend or a used CD store, but they still won't be able to listen to it.
Blizard is in the wrong here. If they did not want people selling/giving their old copies to others, they should not have allowed it according to the EULA. The OP is not asking to have a second account active on the same CD key, he is asking to have a single account active on the CD key, with the old one being disabled.
Jeremy
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.
good point ... why on earth does the game cost anything when it is subscription based?
if you are planning to pay the monthly subscription can you not just download the game installer for free?
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....
Sec. 13 - "This License Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the State of California without regard to conflicts of law provisions, and any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved in accordance with the law of California. You agree that any claim asserted in any legal proceeding by one of the parties against the other shall be commenced and maintained in any state or federal court located in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, having subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the dispute between the parties."
Somebody really needs to teach you guys the BASICS of the US legal system...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.
Since the parent didn't provide proof, here's the relevant passage (it's the fourth paragraph):
"SOFTWARE Backup or Archiving. After You install the SOFTWARE into the permanent memory of a computer, You may keep and use the original disk(s) and/or CD-ROM (the "Storage Media") only for backup or archival purposes."
...and it doesn't hold water. The monthly fee is for maintenance of the systems and resources you continue to use and the base code still cost something to develop. I've seen places that give away the client code for free and wasn't that impressed (Lineage, Jumpgate) compared to something that cost money like EQ or Dark Age of Camelot.
That's like saying you should get a co-located computer for free because you're paying $49.95 a month for bandwidth. There is still an initial investment cost.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
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.)
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.
No, of course not - because it's been proven that there are plenty of idiots that will pay it. And they'll even pay it to a bunch of litigious, greedy bastards like the ones at Blizzard.
I wish people would pay attention and stop supporting companies when they turn into fucktards like Blizzard seems to have done. It seems there is a pattern that a many software companies tend to follow, wherein they build up a certain number of loyal customers or market share, and then they start doing everything they can to gouge their customers and treat them like dogshit. Lawsuits against fans, bloggers, and others are common. And they tend to get away with it more often than not, when they should be bleeding customers left and right. I think Microsoft pretty much led this trend.
I'll give you a few examples. Companies that created excellent product, took good care of their customers, then turned evil when they got to the top of the heap:
Symantec (Norton)
Valve (steam???)
Intuit (check out Ed Foster's Blog)
Blizzard (case in point)
Macromedia (They're working on it)
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
While I don't play WoW, I've been looking at buying a used one. I figured that the key issue would come up, so I did a little research on the WoW website, and found an interesting little entry.
a bl 01115p
http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=
I'm not sure if it's useful, but hopefully it might spark some ideas.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Who said anything about eBay? Or PayPal, for that matter?
TFA doesn't say by what means the used software title was aquired, nor how payment was tendered.
For all we know, he traded a twelve-pack of beer for it with his next-door neighbor.
Get some sunshine. Ebay is not the only venue via which used items change hands.
Kid-proof tablet..