This is why services such as warranties are only applicable to the original owner, as an incentive to purchase a new vehicle rather than a used one.
The last two cars I bought were used, and the manufacturer warranty transferred with the purchase. This was a Toyota in 1997 and a Ford in 2003. I doubt those were isolated occurrances.
If more people would actually pay money for an original product, the cost of those products would go down.
Products are priced to maximize profit, not volume. If the cost of those products would go down, more people could afford to buy them retail and be the original owner. The retailer does not care if a particular person can afford to buy the product; the retailer only cares what price will maximize profits.
When you talk about the environmental effect, the sheer quantity of all those small items vastly outweighs the effects of the relatively few large items.
It is certainly rour right and choice to avoid used merchandise. But it is not your right to prevent other people from doing so.
As for your concern about ripping off the artist, do you allow your friends to listen to music you have purchased, or do you insist they go and buy the CD themselves? Do you turn your stereo off or wear headphones when your friends visit, so they can't rip off the artist by listening to an album they did not pay for?
Do you rent cars from companies such as Hertz, Enterprise, etc.? Multiple people are using those cars without the manufacturer getting any extra compensation. The only difference between this and a library is that a library does not charge you extra for borrowing (beyond use of your tax money).
Interesting. The only mention about that in the EULA is:
If your purchase of the Game included a period of "free access" to the Service, the Terms of Use agreement also governs your access to the Service during the period of "free access."
There is no mention of it in the ToU.
With that in mind, a new version would have been cheaper overall than this used version. Darn it!
No, I am not trying to buy a character/account. I am trying to create my own account using the retail game and authentication key which I purchased from another person legally and in full compliance with the EULA. I do not want his account, and he obviously does not either. I want my own account.
Who owns the key? The person who posses the physical document containing the key, unless that document were stolen, in which case the person it was stolen from.
Until I bought the game, I did not have access to read the EULA. Until I bought the game, I did not know the ToU existed or where to find it. Furthermore, there is nothing in either the EULA or the ToU that imposes the restriction that Blizzard is enforcing.
Sorry about the bold, I must have messed up the closing tag, and of course I didn't preview it this time. Only "only" and "new" were intended to be bold.
Do you also avoid used car lots, used book stores, used music stores, Salvation Army used clothing stores, pawn shops, and any other type of second-hand store? You only by new stuff? Do you refuse gifts from everyone?
The creator/publisher/manufacturer got their cut for this instance of the product. When the original owner no longer wishes to use it, why shouldn't someone else be able to?
Section 3-B includes transfer of the license, so section 5 does not apply. Section 5 only applies if you want to terminate the license, not transfer it.
I should lie to Blizzard, ship material to them, and pay $10 to obtain a new key, when the key I have is a legitimate key which I obtained legally and in full compliance with the EULA?
Actually, the statement was that the original owner could retrieve the account at any time. While they did not explicitly say so, I got the impression that they were talking about the "secret question" to recover a lost password, implying that could not be changed. Probably the username, also. It would be a little ridiculous to prevent a change in password. Of course, I think being unable to change the secret question is also ridiculous. Once someone manages to guess that, you'd never be able to keep control of your account; you'd constantly be forced to take it back over and over again.
If you sell someone your radio, I would expect you to provide the antitheft code with it. If the code is valid, yet doesn't work solely because you transferred ownership to me, who would I take that up with? You, who gave me the proper and valid code, or the manufacturer who somehow determined that a different person is using it and somehow disabled it?
This is not about theft, but about the legal transfer of ownership expressly following the terms of the EULA.
Transfer of the authentication key is expressly authorized and required by section 3-B of the EULA, as part of the "all parts thereof". The authentication key is printed on the CD case.
Neither the EULA nor the ToU make any mention of the authentication key except that it is required to register an account. There is no mention of the first use of it invalidating it for future use, rendering the retail package useless after that first use.
No you don't. Even with the reg code, you still have to create an account (free) and the subscribe to the service (monthly payments) to be able to play. All the reg code does is prove you got hold of a reg code, typically by purchasing the game. Reg codes are an attempt to prevent piracy of the game. They have no bearing on piracy of the service; even with a stolen reg code, you can't pirate the service. The only way to pirate the service would be to using stolen credit cards or stolen pre-paid service cards.
Thank you for the suggestions. I don't know what all the other responders to your post are thinking; yes, I have contacted Blizzard's Billing and Accounts department, but that is not one of the contacts you mentioned. I hadn't thought of any of those options for publicizing the issue, only Slashdot. I guess that shows where I spend most of my time.:)
Section 1-E does not apply; I am not trying to transfer an account. Section 1-A does apply; I am a "you" trying to establish my "one user account". I am not the same "you" as the original owner. The key is not the account; the key is used to create an account. By section 3-B of the EULA, I am now the legal and sole owner of my key, so the original account is now using a key that does not belong to it. The fact that Blizzard apparently does not provide any way for the account owner to disassociate the key from the account when transferring ownership of the key is irrelevant.
Wrong. The key is used to create an account. Nowehere in the EULA or ToU does it state that the key can only be used to create one account. There are two relevant statements in the ToU about this. One is that "you" must use the key to create an account. The other is that "you" may create one account. The original owner was one of those "you's". I am another "you". The fact that the key is the same is irrelevant; because ownership of the key has been transferred, the original account should be disabled and the new account should be created.
I do exactly that. However, I have been utterly unsuccessful at convincing my wife to do the same with hers. Her battery is dead more often than charged; she checks her voicemail more often from my phone than from hers. Of course, she also handles her keys the same way; there have been times we've spent half an hour looking for her keys because she just sets them down wherever she finds convenient at the time.
I would love for this to happen. I maintain my own mail server behind my cable modem and have gone to great pains to make sure it isn't an open relay and have never received any indication that it has been abused in any way. I specifically picked an ISP that allowed this (earthlink cable).
The biggest problem I run into is that my IP address is included in a range that is on some list somewhere as a dynamic address (yes, it is a DHCP non-static address that has changed ONE time in three years), and about once every 5 or 6 months, someone in my family encounters a bounce from yet another company that won't accept our mail because of that. I have to route mail to those companies through my ISP's server. I've got 5 companies in that list now, and the annoying thing is my ISP was the first one in the list.
If earthlink would offer a static IP on cable, I would get it quick. I don't understand why they don't. My dynamic IP has only changed once in three years, and that occurred after a 10 day power outage from an ice storm.
You'd think that if 2% of the calls are monitored for quality control purposes... then QC would actually improve in the long run. In my experience, phone support/service is generally about the same (or less) quality as it was many years ago.
The problem is high turnover in call centers. The people who stay do continue to get better (or at least not worse) or they are eventually sacked. Unfortunately, every time a new person starts answering the phone, you're pretty much starting all over again where the training videos leave off.
Using your water fountain example, that is exactly what people are doing. Who pays for the water in the fountain? The business providing it. I have yet to see a pay meter installed on a water fountain.
Buying a bottle of water would be about equivalent to buying a battery. I pay for the container, which happens to have contents I want. When empty, I go to the fountain/outlet and refill it.
Price is a function of cost and benefit, both to the buyer and the seller. If providing a fountain for "free" water did not provide some benefit to the business, they would not endure the cost of it. Providing "free" electricity to customers of the business is another cost that is very minimal (as has been pointed out by many posters here) to the business and provides a huge benefit: happy customers, customers who can stick around longer to purchase more of whatever the business sells instead of leaving to go recharge.
If the price of that cup of coffee were the same ($5) at two different places, and one place allowed you to use electricity that costs them *maybe* as much as 10 cents, which place would get more business? How many extra $5 cups of coffee would you have to sell to compensate for the 10-cent usage of some customers? Assuming a profit of $1 on the cup, 1 extra cup for every 10 electricity-using customers.
Based on my home electric bill, one dollar powers my entire house (air conditioner, refrigerator, 3 computers, lights, electric stove/oven, TV, stereo, DVD player, fans, etc.) for about 5-6 hours. I most certainly would not be willing to pay one dollar just to charge my phone or computer for an hour, unless I was truly desparate.
If the cost of electricity is breaking the business, they need to revise their business plan. At the very least, they should look into some energy saving measures, such as maybe turning off a few lights, dim their overly bright signs outside, adjust the thermostat, etc.
I would love it. I would be able to tell you a time and you would know what time that represented without having to figure out what my time zone is and whether I am on daylight saving time or not and what the difference is between it and your time zone, especially when dealing with those quirky 1/2-shift zones). The work I do, I have to deal with people all around the world, and figuring out what time we are all talking about for a conference call (or recently and instant messaging conference) is a real pain. Heck, even just asking someone what time the problem occurred is a problem if I am off by even one zone.
How often do you get messed up just resetting your watch when you cross time zones? As a nice side effect, this could get rid of daylight saving time, too. You'd never have to reset you clock/watch again, except after power outages/ battery changes.
I wouldn't mind working 13:00-22:00 instead of 08:00-17:00 if it meant we could get rid of the time zone concept altogether.
First of all, I have to say, anyone who signs their posts is a real jackass. You sound like a 50 year old guy who is just bitching because things are not as pure as they were when you were a kid. Get a Grip and turn the fucking hearing aid down, thats why the TV is so loud.
I believe in what I say and see no need to hide behine anonymity. I notice you didn't go the "anonymous coward" path either. Takes one to know one, I guess.
You're way off on my age. Don't quit your day job; you'll never make it as an age guesser at the circus.
Things are about the same as when I was a kid. I didn't like painfully loud music then, and I still don't. The main difference between then and now is that a lot more places go for the "easy" distraction of TVs or loud music to keep people quiet and oblivious to everything else around them. It is harder to avoid such places.
Finally, maybe you should get a hearing aid if your hearing is so bad. My hearing is just fine without one.
The sheer fucking arrogance of smokers and
stereo blasters and overly loud public TVs
leaves me almost at a loss for words...
Other people might want to watch
Other people might want some peace and quiet.
Portable TVs and headphones are common enough
that the people who just HAVE to have their
TV addiction satisfied should be able to do
so without disturbing everyone around them.
The percentage of people actually paying attention to those TVs is very small; what gives them the right to overrule the vast majority of people there, other than some stupid social standard that TV is GOD?
the submitter has a problem with controlling his own actions if he can't talk with his "human companions" in the proximity of a TV
A *LOT* of people have trouble focusing on
things with a TV around. The quick movements
of the TV attracts the eyes involuntarily.
The noise of the TV is often so loud that you
CAN'T understand what someone next to you is saying.
it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places
It's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to
force everyone to watch and hear what only a
very few people are interested in, especially in
areas where they do not have a reasonable alternate choice, such as waiting rooms almost everywhere, public walkways, the hallways of shopping malls, etc. (Notice I did not include restaurants in the list; those are so common there is almost always a reasonable alternate place to go.)
Slashdot Mirror
The last two cars I bought were used, and the manufacturer warranty transferred with the purchase. This was a Toyota in 1997 and a Ford in 2003. I doubt those were isolated occurrances.
If more people would actually pay money for an original product, the cost of those products would go down.
Products are priced to maximize profit, not volume. If the cost of those products would go down, more people could afford to buy them retail and be the original owner. The retailer does not care if a particular person can afford to buy the product; the retailer only cares what price will maximize profits.
When you talk about the environmental effect, the sheer quantity of all those small items vastly outweighs the effects of the relatively few large items.
It is certainly rour right and choice to avoid used merchandise. But it is not your right to prevent other people from doing so.
As for your concern about ripping off the artist, do you allow your friends to listen to music you have purchased, or do you insist they go and buy the CD themselves? Do you turn your stereo off or wear headphones when your friends visit, so they can't rip off the artist by listening to an album they did not pay for?
Do you rent cars from companies such as Hertz, Enterprise, etc.? Multiple people are using those cars without the manufacturer getting any extra compensation. The only difference between this and a library is that a library does not charge you extra for borrowing (beyond use of your tax money).
There is no mention of it in the ToU.
With that in mind, a new version would have been cheaper overall than this used version. Darn it!
No, I am not trying to buy a character/account. I am trying to create my own account using the retail game and authentication key which I purchased from another person legally and in full compliance with the EULA. I do not want his account, and he obviously does not either. I want my own account.
Who owns the key? The person who posses the physical document containing the key, unless that document were stolen, in which case the person it was stolen from.
Until I bought the game, I did not have access to read the EULA. Until I bought the game, I did not know the ToU existed or where to find it. Furthermore, there is nothing in either the EULA or the ToU that imposes the restriction that Blizzard is enforcing.
Sorry about the bold, I must have messed up the closing tag, and of course I didn't preview it this time. Only "only" and "new" were intended to be bold.
The creator/publisher/manufacturer got their cut for this instance of the product. When the original owner no longer wishes to use it, why shouldn't someone else be able to?
Section 1-E: No account is being transferred.
From the article: "I keep telling them I do not want an account transferred, but want to create my own account."
Section 3-B includes transfer of the license, so section 5 does not apply. Section 5 only applies if you want to terminate the license, not transfer it.
I should lie to Blizzard, ship material to them, and pay $10 to obtain a new key, when the key I have is a legitimate key which I obtained legally and in full compliance with the EULA?
Actually, the statement was that the original owner could retrieve the account at any time. While they did not explicitly say so, I got the impression that they were talking about the "secret question" to recover a lost password, implying that could not be changed. Probably the username, also. It would be a little ridiculous to prevent a change in password. Of course, I think being unable to change the secret question is also ridiculous. Once someone manages to guess that, you'd never be able to keep control of your account; you'd constantly be forced to take it back over and over again.
This is not about theft, but about the legal transfer of ownership expressly following the terms of the EULA.
Neither the EULA nor the ToU make any mention of the authentication key except that it is required to register an account. There is no mention of the first use of it invalidating it for future use, rendering the retail package useless after that first use.
No you don't. Even with the reg code, you still have to create an account (free) and the subscribe to the service (monthly payments) to be able to play. All the reg code does is prove you got hold of a reg code, typically by purchasing the game. Reg codes are an attempt to prevent piracy of the game. They have no bearing on piracy of the service; even with a stolen reg code, you can't pirate the service. The only way to pirate the service would be to using stolen credit cards or stolen pre-paid service cards.
Thank you for the suggestions. I don't know what all the other responders to your post are thinking; yes, I have contacted Blizzard's Billing and Accounts department, but that is not one of the contacts you mentioned. I hadn't thought of any of those options for publicizing the issue, only Slashdot. I guess that shows where I spend most of my time. :)
Section 1-E does not apply; I am not trying to transfer an account. Section 1-A does apply; I am a "you" trying to establish my "one user account". I am not the same "you" as the original owner. The key is not the account; the key is used to create an account. By section 3-B of the EULA, I am now the legal and sole owner of my key, so the original account is now using a key that does not belong to it. The fact that Blizzard apparently does not provide any way for the account owner to disassociate the key from the account when transferring ownership of the key is irrelevant.
Wrong. The key is used to create an account. Nowehere in the EULA or ToU does it state that the key can only be used to create one account. There are two relevant statements in the ToU about this. One is that "you" must use the key to create an account. The other is that "you" may create one account. The original owner was one of those "you's". I am another "you". The fact that the key is the same is irrelevant; because ownership of the key has been transferred, the original account should be disabled and the new account should be created.
I do exactly that. However, I have been utterly unsuccessful at convincing my wife to do the same with hers. Her battery is dead more often than charged; she checks her voicemail more often from my phone than from hers. Of course, she also handles her keys the same way; there have been times we've spent half an hour looking for her keys because she just sets them down wherever she finds convenient at the time.
The biggest problem I run into is that my IP address is included in a range that is on some list somewhere as a dynamic address (yes, it is a DHCP non-static address that has changed ONE time in three years), and about once every 5 or 6 months, someone in my family encounters a bounce from yet another company that won't accept our mail because of that. I have to route mail to those companies through my ISP's server. I've got 5 companies in that list now, and the annoying thing is my ISP was the first one in the list.
If earthlink would offer a static IP on cable, I would get it quick. I don't understand why they don't. My dynamic IP has only changed once in three years, and that occurred after a 10 day power outage from an ice storm.
The problem is high turnover in call centers. The people who stay do continue to get better (or at least not worse) or they are eventually sacked. Unfortunately, every time a new person starts answering the phone, you're pretty much starting all over again where the training videos leave off.
Buying a bottle of water would be about equivalent to buying a battery. I pay for the container, which happens to have contents I want. When empty, I go to the fountain/outlet and refill it.
Price is a function of cost and benefit, both to the buyer and the seller. If providing a fountain for "free" water did not provide some benefit to the business, they would not endure the cost of it. Providing "free" electricity to customers of the business is another cost that is very minimal (as has been pointed out by many posters here) to the business and provides a huge benefit: happy customers, customers who can stick around longer to purchase more of whatever the business sells instead of leaving to go recharge.
If the price of that cup of coffee were the same ($5) at two different places, and one place allowed you to use electricity that costs them *maybe* as much as 10 cents, which place would get more business? How many extra $5 cups of coffee would you have to sell to compensate for the 10-cent usage of some customers? Assuming a profit of $1 on the cup, 1 extra cup for every 10 electricity-using customers.
If the cost of electricity is breaking the business, they need to revise their business plan. At the very least, they should look into some energy saving measures, such as maybe turning off a few lights, dim their overly bright signs outside, adjust the thermostat, etc.
How often do you get messed up just resetting your watch when you cross time zones? As a nice side effect, this could get rid of daylight saving time, too. You'd never have to reset you clock/watch again, except after power outages/ battery changes.
I wouldn't mind working 13:00-22:00 instead of 08:00-17:00 if it meant we could get rid of the time zone concept altogether.
I believe in what I say and see no need to hide behine anonymity. I notice you didn't go the "anonymous coward" path either. Takes one to know one, I guess.
You're way off on my age. Don't quit your day job; you'll never make it as an age guesser at the circus.
Things are about the same as when I was a kid. I didn't like painfully loud music then, and I still don't. The main difference between then and now is that a lot more places go for the "easy" distraction of TVs or loud music to keep people quiet and oblivious to everything else around them. It is harder to avoid such places.
Finally, maybe you should get a hearing aid if your hearing is so bad. My hearing is just fine without one.
The sheer fucking arrogance of smokers and stereo blasters and overly loud public TVs leaves me almost at a loss for words...
Other people might want to watch
Other people might want some peace and quiet. Portable TVs and headphones are common enough that the people who just HAVE to have their TV addiction satisfied should be able to do so without disturbing everyone around them. The percentage of people actually paying attention to those TVs is very small; what gives them the right to overrule the vast majority of people there, other than some stupid social standard that TV is GOD?
the submitter has a problem with controlling his own actions if he can't talk with his "human companions" in the proximity of a TV
A *LOT* of people have trouble focusing on things with a TV around. The quick movements of the TV attracts the eyes involuntarily. The noise of the TV is often so loud that you CAN'T understand what someone next to you is saying.
it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places
It's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to force everyone to watch and hear what only a very few people are interested in, especially in areas where they do not have a reasonable alternate choice, such as waiting rooms almost everywhere, public walkways, the hallways of shopping malls, etc. (Notice I did not include restaurants in the list; those are so common there is almost always a reasonable alternate place to go.)