You read MAI v Peak and can say it's exactly this situation? You're on glue. In MvP MAI's customers had explicitly licensed the software. As in, making deals with the sales guys and signing contracts. They most certainly didn't purchase the software retail. Also, MvP hinges on consultants not being part of the original organization, a contractual oddity totally unrelated to this trial. Oh, and 99% of the case involves stolen trade secrets, actual unauthorized copying, etc...
That's how a judge should choose precedents. Based on reality. Show me a precedent where a customer bought a product and ended up with a "I promise not to use what I just bought, and in fact, didn't really buy it" contract instead, which only upon their accepting under duress was replaced with the actual product purchased. Otherwise it wasn't a precedent but a meaningless coincidence of similar factors. I mean sheesh, what's next, the color of the car the defendant was driving at the time?
These aren't corporate customers who license software routinely, these are indeed the quintessential retail shoppers. They bought the game in the same purchase with CDs, lunch, and makeup. To imply that software is licensed in their world is ludicrous.
In general though, yes I'd prefer endless mistrials and honest judges quitting in droves instead of bad verdicts. Just as I'd prefer a jury's refusal to convict to a conviction on a bad law. Sometimes following the system results in broken results.
That would be true if the warning had any legal weight, which it does not. In the absence of such a thing, it's a sale if it looks like one.
Really, what says otherwise? A few tangential precedents that all involved significant non-EULA communication? Versus centuries of precedent that a sale results in full ownership unless otherwise fully disclosed.
As for the contract, you'd be right... IF it was the person who didn't sign trying to get it voided. Because then intentional ignorance would be the perfect defense. But if you're trying to uphold a contract that you know I didn't look at, you'll be fighting an uphill battle on any unreasonable provisions. A contract requires a meeting of minds and if you know I have no idea about the provisions you *know* that we do not agree.
Try it. 900 page contract. Include one sentence in the drivel about receiving the other person's car. Ask people to sign it to receive a free gift or something and try to enforce your contract. Don't plan any road-trips in the new car.
I had the idea of a gaming company, one dept of which is based on making a UI that plays as much of the game as possible. Why should you need to click on a specific monster for your hero to know to attack it? If your game isn't enjoyable with the helper-UI killing everything, auto-drinking potions, etc, then you either fix the game or admit to making a click-fest.
As for Blizzard's good will, I've got multiple reasons to disbelieve. First, they used questionable legal tactics to squash bnetd, which should have been legal. Second, when I had problems with Blizzard's copy protection their answer was for me to buy a new CD Drive, not to provide a patch which didn't mistakenly trigger on my burner, or provide a refund.
EULAs can say whatever they want, but once you own the software you have no obligation to agree to them and as they restrict access to your product until you click agree, it can't be assumed that you clicking 'give me what I paid for' actually means 'I agree to this additional license'. In fact, it's pretty obvious that you'd hardly ever mean that, as EULAs lower the value of the software, not raise it to offer any enticement to agree. When software comes with a contract that says "You bought this and own it - but, if you agree to treat it as a license we'll give you these great extras..." it will start to be binding, but only if they don't conflate agreement with "just let me use the damn thing".
As to the enforceability of Microsoft EULA on Microsoft - that what it's good for. They can very well back out of one of the provisions of what they claim to be a contract, can they?
All that's needed to kill EULAs is to educate people that licenses are not required. If someone tells you that software is licensed, they are lying. Sales are sales unless the cashier/etc make it abundantly clear that it is not. A little note on the box is far from good enough. You own software just like you own a book - in totality, but unable to duplicate it or murder someone with it - ie, subject to some laws.
There are two parts. They do not control access to their code - they sold that.
They do control access to the servers - the ongoing contract you sign when paying covers that.
The servers are the theater in your analogy. They can go after individual patrons who violate their individual agreements - but not the company that made "Sneaking Sized Snacks - perfect for classes and theaters".
Copyright is an entirely different area of law than contract. And just because the guilty party is hard to sue doesn't mean you should be able to pick someone easier.
There are a thousand precedents that establish that if it looks like a sale, it is a sale. He could follow one of those, instead of the counter-intuitive and hardly related to EULA precedents that exist.
Both ProCD and the Gateway case, major EULA "wins" are mostly tangential to the idea of EULAs being enforced where unexpected.
When you rent a car you go to a car rental company. You say "I want to rent a car". When you buy software you go to a software and hardware store, buy some cables, a game, etc. When you buy the software they tell you it's a non-refundable sale.
It's as much a sale as the cable it comes with.
Copyright statue in the US says "owners of a copy", not "licensees of a copy" so it's clearly not the default state that copyrighted works are licensed.
In fact, when this was tried with "contracts" in books a hundred years ago it was struck down after some tentative initial success from stupid judges.
Pardon me for not rolling over and taking for granted the total reversal of contract and sales law. Especially when all the proof comes from software companies abusing EULAs.
No, the true mark of your fanboy mentality is that this keep becoming polarized. "People like you", "Apple haterism", "you lack choice"...
You assume I hate Apple because I dislike the idea of having to jailbreak a device to use it in advanced mode. Grasp for many straws?
You are a waste of time, so I'll let you have the last response where you can repeat yourself again. I see no reason to read it though since I've read it twice already.
I'm not saying it's right that you only ever buy a 'llicense' to software, not a 'copy.' But that doesn't change the reality.
A few cases only tangentially related to EULAs don't change the fundamental nature of contracts.
If the transaction looks like a sale, and it does all the times I've purchased software, with hardware, books, etc... Same transaction, same lack of contract discussion.
Publishers of books tried to claim that you didn't have the right to transfer your books for money (to kill the resale market) but that was struck down and resulted in the doctrine of first sale, that exhaustion of the sellers rights at first sale, and upheld that book purchases were sales, despite putative contracts in the books stating otherwise.
17usc117a1: "... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program..."
The law is specifically written to acknowledge the rights of owners of a copy of software. This is clearly the default state - if EULAs were the done deal software companies wanted you to think, clearly copyright statute wouldn't speak of the owner when all EULAs, which you claim are universal, disclaim this concept.
If you don't know what the terms of that EULA are, then it's your fault for buying a pig in a poke [...] Not reading and/or understanding all the ridiculously fine print on the box, and the fine print it references, isn't going to fly as an argument in court.
For a contract to be valid you have to believe that the other party understands it. If I flash a 20-page contract at you and you sign it in 30s, that can actually be grounds to void it. That's why companies who really want their contracts to stand show you through the clauses, highlighting key areas.
As for the EULA itself, clearly ripping through plastic to access your own goods, or clicking 'I Agree' to a 20-page "contract" to use your new game are not times when you can expect someone to seriously consider the possibility. Negotiations happen before money changes hands, once the sale happens you own the thing. And if it happens at a cash register without the cashier having you sign a specific contract, it's a sale. Everything after there is warnings and cover-your-ass company speak. Like all the warnings on a DVD telling you not to copy it, as if you've never heard of copyright law.
You claim to be open minded, but are taking the reactionary - "Oh noes, a company's money - fry the bastards with any available law and damn the inconvenient precedents" platform.
As for your speech, I'll mock it, not suppress it. I didn't advocate the deletion of your post, just your ritual atonement over the disgrace of the ignorant stance and bandwagon jumping.
I don't bother mentioning that WoW-Glider is for-profit software because it doesn't change anything. No, seriously. Let's say Bliz won, and next month someone is doing exactly the same thing with a debugger like IDA Pro and a python script. Then we're right back to the bad behavior because the actual guilty parties are not punished.
As for the legality of him "hacking" Bliz's software... No. He owns his copy - bought it outright at a store. Following the precedent of Sega vs Accolade he exercised his fair-use rights to decompile the program and develop a compatible add-on. Similarly, the users only modify their own software. No *hacking* happens to anything Blizzard owns - it's not like this program worms its way into the matrix or anything, merely intercepts and rewrites to packets being sent to you, to contain something you could have put there if you were at the keyboard.
You clearly do not understand what is happening, the legalities of it, of software ownership in general, the players involved, or their motivations. Yet despite this you are clearly in support of abusing copyright law to stop something that clearly is totally unrelated to copyright and clearly is covered by very contracts the users sign.
This is absolutely black and white. People violated their contracts. Other people sold a legal product. The only thing making the use of the software bad is the contract... Open and shut contract issue. I don't really care about the outcome, just that it not establish new and broken precedents in already crufty enough laws.
Perhaps my empathy with someone in Blizzard's shoes evaporated when they repeatedly abused the law to prevent legal interaction (bnetd, sc mods), knowingly sue the wrong people, etc. Harassment techniques worthy of scientology.
Here Apple is a HW vendor, and thus free from Microsoft's abuses.
Ah, yes, Apple can rely on the swift and reliable response of the Department of Justice to protect them from Microsoft's abuses.
No. Microsoft isn't a threat to Apple because they control two things, Microsoft Windows (and the VARs who rely on bulk discounts) and Microsoft Office (and theoretically the business-worthiness of anyone without it). But neither of these really apply.
Apple doesn't need access to Dell or Gateway's machines like OS/2 did, so what can Microsoft's stranglehold over those vendors do?
Apple also doesn't need Microsoft Office - even if it went away in the future there are good alternatives and the Vista experience has put a lot of companies off of the Office-upgrade treadmill. See many people wanting DOCs? PDFs are on the rise from the PHB segment because they actually retain formatting and aren't that much less painful than word docs.
So I don't think MS is much of a threat to Apple these days.
Apple needs to operate in a different market: whole computers, hardware and software both.
You wouldn't keep buying premium Apple hardware? It is pretty slick... I don't think the clones would steal much of Apple's market - more like extend Apple's market to people who'd otherwise have bought a PC because of price.
But those are customers Apple would be mostly glad to lose - the overly price conscious and low-margin ones.
As for clones matching Apple, look at the iPhone and the Air. Competitors matched some key specs (no-buttons, thickness) of each quite soon, but with huge compromises. If you want either of those products, and many do, the existence of cheap clones only makes the functioning of the real thing that much slicker.
Apple just becomes that much more successful because clones boost their market share and concentrating on high-end sales lets them be even neater (magnetic cables, etc).
It would lead to Apple going out of business [...] Tell me again how this is a better outcome?
Then Apple should just charge whatever it costs them to develop it, and let the market decide! (Thanks, I will use it.)
No, seriously. If it *really* costs $1k * #ofMacUsers to code OS X and that's more than the market will bear then maybe they should look into a subscription model or something. That's far less than a cell-phone costs for a 3-year contract. Besides, it's things like Apple and Microsoft funding discounted OSes (and browsers, etc) that kills the competition and artificially lessens the need for free software.
But, enough of the should and what if.
What laws do you see as actually giving Apple the right to buy a DVD drive and resell it over the possible complaint of its manufacturer, and yet refuse to let its own OS be bought by a similar bundler of services?
You've got entitlement feelings, but no legal justification.
I see, because MS has an evil monopoly, Apple needs to be the only one to control the sale or resale of Apple computers...
Yes, a lot. I also took the trouble to educate myself. I suggest you do the same.
Think much?
Yes, a lot. I also took the trouble to educate myself. I suggest you do the same.
Maybe you're not much of a teacher.
Well, alternately they could abandon OS X. They sure can't bring it to market directly against Windows, which has a monopoly on the market.
You went into suspended animation in 1998? Microsoft can't even use their monopoly to push Vista, let alone compete with Mac OS X.
Besides, Microsoft abused their power with the HW vendors. Here Apple is a HW vendor, and thus free from Microsoft's abuses.
If Pystar wins in court, they sure wouldn't be the only one to try the business model. So by winning such a court decision, so they'd force Apple to change behavior.
What business model, that of selling OS X to people who couldn't afford it before? How horrible.
By themselves they're bringing about a total reversal of Apple's nature, from a benevolent friend to a legal abuser like Blizzard.
Apple does whatever makes them money.
And there's nothing else that makes them money besides abusing the legal system to force a legal product off the market, thereby depriving the customers of that company and the company itself of their just profits.
This is just resale of Apple's merchandise, the way Apple resells LCDs, DVD drivers, HDs, etc. All perfectly legal.
And yet, Psystar is forcing Jobs to do do something repugnant like destroying free markets simply by competing with them. Poor Jobs, to have only two choices, do nothing or do the wrong thing.
So what would you rather do, sue the people who are cheating or sue the people that are profiting off of enabling that cheating?
Sue the people who are cheating. They're the ones who are violating their contract.
They have a way to punish cheaters already, they ban their accounts. There is no need to sue them so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
So according to you, Blizzard is already finished punishing the cheaters.
Listen, if the result of this case allows other entities to "trample on the rights of everyone", I will be the first to admit my mistake. But it just isn't going to happen.
Anything based on a nonsensical legal premise can't help but hurt everyone who has to live with that system, even if only because of the lack of faith it causes.
17-117a1 clearly allows a program to be loaded as long as that is required for its use, regardless of the wishes of the authors. To base an anti-cheating case on this is the height of lunacy. If it succeeds it won't do anything to stop the next WoW-Glider which will simply bypass the checks in another fashion, but it will turn our pristine and beautiful laws (err) into a joke, of nonsense loopholes and strange technological boundaries.
If you really think that the world would be better with a law that prevents someone making cheat software, or software that hurts someone else's business regardless of their actual usage, then maybe you should petition for a law that says that.
Instead, because you like Blizzard more than WoW-Glider's author and fans, you want to throw them the case despite huge technical errors.
It's amusing that the obvious legal use for WoW Glider is something Blizzard already destroyed, bnetd. Despite the fact that bnetd was in demand for far more than piracy reasons (people like private servers, with only their friends) Blizzard killed bnetd with an unreasonable lawsuit.
So pardon me if I actually use Blizzard's past actions to interpret their current actions.
If you do not appreciate that you can't hack their service, do not buy the game. You do not have the right to create software for the express purpose of damaging their service...that is just freaking common sense.
You don't understand that this isn't hacking, but rule-breaking, rules established in a contract. But Blizzard is suing someone else after totally failing to negotiate with the other parties to the actual contract.
There's no law against using software to press keys for you, or for writing software for people who understand that there's no law against such software.
It's a contractual dispute, how about settling it with the parties to the contract?
making a whole post without hoping for my death
While you are not in error, it is not because of any success on your part, merely the fact that I did not hope for your death in either post. I merely mentioned your self-culling as a way to improve the fitness of the herd and eliminate the shame of your foul and ill-conceived opinions on those around you.
Forced to add DRM. Yeah. FORCED to drive Psystar out of business by making their product less useful and screwing over customers of both companies and everyone who has to live with these broken laws.
No other alternatives. None. Psystar is going to make Steve Jobs, one of the richest and most powerful men, do something he'd hate to do. Just Psystar. Jobs would go to the ends of the Earth to avoid worsening user experience through DRM and EULA nonsense and ONLY Psystar is changing this. By themselves they're bringing about a total reversal of Apple's nature, from a benevolent friend to a legal abuser like Blizzard.
Think much?
Apple could embrace capitalism - the same thing that lets them buy computer components and resell them - and tolerate the same thing being done to their products. But you are right on one thing, that'll never happen.
Stop drinking the koolaid. It's not about if it hurts Apple, or if Psystar deserves this.
Apple sells a product. In accordance with the laws of the country, Psystar buys that product and resells it.
This isn't against the law. Apple is hoping to twist a law to make this a violation, but this is exactly what capitalism is. Psystar isn't even violating Apple's trademark, merely referring to it in a descriptive fashion.
As for who gets the support calls, if there were a law about that Microsoft would have fallen foul of it for making ISPs handle tech-support for their OS.
The same laws that let Apple buy DVD drives without having to ask special permission to use them, also let people buy an Apple computer (and resell it) without asking for Apple's permission.
If it didn't work this way Microsoft could bribe all the DVD drive makers to not sell to Apple and Apple would be screwed. This way all he can do is attempt to buy all stock, which merely drives up the prices. Be careful what post-sale control you wish to grant Apple, lest it be used to destroy them and everyone else by a real scam-outfit like Rambus, or SCO.
It's not the substantive point of the argument, but I don't expect you to understand the difference between an ad-hominem and an insult. Premise vs Conclusion...
If Blizzard wants to protect their business model I suggest they try to find a related law instead of fucking with the laws and ruining the world everyone else has to live in. There's a ToS which the users clearly agreed to, which gives Blizzard an open-and-shut case against them. The people who pay - the people who entered into an actual contract... You know - ones relevant to the issue at hand.
But no, that would be hard - too many little lawsuits. So Blizzard decided to sue someone totally unrelated, who isn't a party to the game or the ToS.
That's an abuse of the system. The sort of thing only worthless people do.
Then they further decided to conflate the ToS and EULA, then pretend that the EULA is part of the contract of sale when all of their lawyers know full well that the elements of a contract specifically rule out post-agreement changes such as EULAs. Deliberate intention to mis-frame the issue. Lies.
All to avoid a more costly lawsuit against the actual guilty parties.
And then you come along and support that. It's okay, you want us to know, because cheaters can cause them to lose customers. You're *glad* those cheaters are getting what they deserve, even though no cheater is being punished, the punished person is not a cheater, and the rest of us have to live with continued legal abuse and a further-broken precedent.
You're perfectly happy to trample on the rights of everyone because they're doing something you don't approve of. Willing to bury the rest of us under a mass of invasive and restrictive law simply because you don't approve. Had you been aborted we'd still be looking for a cure to cancer, and have one less empty-headed follower blindly pulling the "More Laws, Please!" lever.
And yes, I'd say that to your face. To anyone who espoused the view that we should be seen as not owning things we clearly bought, merely because our property rights aren't convenient for some company that wants to abuse the legal system. To anyone who was so glad some vilified group (cheaters) is going to get theirs that they don't actually pay attention to the claims, or proof of guilt, or to who actually gets what.
Yes every release so far has been broken, so they will all continue to be broken.
That makes sense.
And I'm jealous (of who) because you can't install background apps on an iPhone without jailbreaking...
Do you read what you write?
Personally, this isn't an iPhone thing. I'd say exactly the same if it was a Motorola phone, some unreleased Google boondoggle, or an iPhone... If you want me to buy one, let me use it without software mods that you claim violate the warranty.
You're the one who can't see why others want an ability. You're the one telling others that they're wrong for wanting it. Sounds like sour grapes and a bad case of Fanboism.
But SL the life replacement... People who spend real money on models/skins for their characters... People who panic about CopyBot because then people won't have to buy skins... People who buy houses, for characters that stop existing when you log off...
Just like Lambda MOO was cool, but the person who "got raped" in it was a thorough loser. Log off if you don't enjoy the game. Ignore people who don't wish to speak to. But instead they whine until they get the support of more people like them, then pass a ton of restrictive rules turning it into My Little Pony - Tea Time for People with Weak Hearts.
At that, the open-sourcing of SL is the only way it'll not be a corporate hell-hole of IRC-with-pictures lamers.
Reasonable? For them to sue someone under a totally unrelated copyright statute and pollute the legal system with false precedents?
The Terms of Service give them a way to kick off any user breaking the rules, boting is against the rules. They merely don't want to kick off the users because the users pay them money. They'd rather keep the actual cheats and merely remove the maker of the software because he doesn't pay them anything.
Of course, he's also not doing anything to them... But what the hell with being reasonable, they're Blizzard and they're buying law!
Would you stand in front of a sobbing mother and tell her that she doesn't have a right to keep her minor children from playing a rape-simulator like GTA? Huh? Would you? You heartless bastard.
Having covered that, are sex-related morals the only ones you should be able to instill in your progeny, or are theft-related ones acceptable? If so, it seems that uttering false contracts should be acceptable too, and with that you have Blizzard. Selling WoW (contract of sale, implied) and trying to act as if they licensed it.
The law says "essential step" and does not follow with "in using the software as the manufacturer intended".
You, the user, decide what's proper use. You may load Excel to do spreadsheets, or to play the flight sim easter egg, or to inject memory failures into its process space and see how long until it dies.
Sorry, but as long a Blizzard sold WoW, it gave up all these rights. They should have merely sent it to the user for free, after signup for the MMO and agreeing to the ToS. In that manner they could have shown the restrictions before finalizing the agreement, and made the agreement one to allow access to the MMO, not for ownership of the software.
Oh. And you don't own anything either. Look at them, I've paid a thief to sew "WNight owns this" labels on everything you own.
When you explain why that isn't binding you'll have explained exactly why it isn't binding when Blizzard does such a thing.
Seriously, read up on contract law. Find the section that says hidden clauses which are revealed post-agreement are valid and binding. You may be searching for a while...
So do you. Read. Self-educate. Stop accepting money from Blizzard to lie on forums. EULAs are post-sale, you've BOUGHT the software by then and aren't subject to extra conditions.
They got their last cent from me when a retail version of one of their games wouldn't play in my CD drive because of copy protection. It was a burner - back when this was a bit uncommon (late 90s). When I emailed support they said it was a known issue and recommended that I buy a new CD ROM drive (not a burner).
I said this was too much and asked for a refund. They said no.
I asked for a special build (even with my name compiled in) that wouldn't check the CD drive. They said no.
I mentioned how it wouldn't have this problem if I cracked it. They said that would be illegal.
I told them selling products you know aren't going to work is illegal. They didn't reply.
Since then they've sued the bnet team, etc, etc, etc. Total jerks.
If the EULA says anything, ignore it. It came *in* the box, which you got to see well after the sale. It isn't binding.
Some say otherwise, but it'll take more than a few retarded judges to make post-sale contracts legal.
Sorry, these laws will keep getting bandied about until someone sells IBM a box with a EULA in it that purports to give the creator cash equivalent to 1% of IBMs stock each time the program is loaded into memory. At that point IBM'll simply point out that they didn't agree to that, it was hidden in something they did purchase (under the standard implied contract of sale) and not at all binding. They'll win because it's absolutely idiotic to think otherwise - "A contract you've never seen? Well, of course it must be binding, it says so!"
So far it's just big companies suing individuals and small companies. In our legal system that's a guaranteed win.
Slashdot Mirror
You read MAI v Peak and can say it's exactly this situation? You're on glue. In MvP MAI's customers had explicitly licensed the software. As in, making deals with the sales guys and signing contracts. They most certainly didn't purchase the software retail. Also, MvP hinges on consultants not being part of the original organization, a contractual oddity totally unrelated to this trial. Oh, and 99% of the case involves stolen trade secrets, actual unauthorized copying, etc...
That's how a judge should choose precedents. Based on reality. Show me a precedent where a customer bought a product and ended up with a "I promise not to use what I just bought, and in fact, didn't really buy it" contract instead, which only upon their accepting under duress was replaced with the actual product purchased. Otherwise it wasn't a precedent but a meaningless coincidence of similar factors. I mean sheesh, what's next, the color of the car the defendant was driving at the time?
These aren't corporate customers who license software routinely, these are indeed the quintessential retail shoppers. They bought the game in the same purchase with CDs, lunch, and makeup. To imply that software is licensed in their world is ludicrous.
In general though, yes I'd prefer endless mistrials and honest judges quitting in droves instead of bad verdicts. Just as I'd prefer a jury's refusal to convict to a conviction on a bad law. Sometimes following the system results in broken results.
That would be true if the warning had any legal weight, which it does not. In the absence of such a thing, it's a sale if it looks like one.
Really, what says otherwise? A few tangential precedents that all involved significant non-EULA communication? Versus centuries of precedent that a sale results in full ownership unless otherwise fully disclosed.
As for the contract, you'd be right... IF it was the person who didn't sign trying to get it voided. Because then intentional ignorance would be the perfect defense. But if you're trying to uphold a contract that you know I didn't look at, you'll be fighting an uphill battle on any unreasonable provisions. A contract requires a meeting of minds and if you know I have no idea about the provisions you *know* that we do not agree.
Try it. 900 page contract. Include one sentence in the drivel about receiving the other person's car. Ask people to sign it to receive a free gift or something and try to enforce your contract. Don't plan any road-trips in the new car.
I had the idea of a gaming company, one dept of which is based on making a UI that plays as much of the game as possible. Why should you need to click on a specific monster for your hero to know to attack it? If your game isn't enjoyable with the helper-UI killing everything, auto-drinking potions, etc, then you either fix the game or admit to making a click-fest.
As for Blizzard's good will, I've got multiple reasons to disbelieve. First, they used questionable legal tactics to squash bnetd, which should have been legal. Second, when I had problems with Blizzard's copy protection their answer was for me to buy a new CD Drive, not to provide a patch which didn't mistakenly trigger on my burner, or provide a refund.
EULAs can say whatever they want, but once you own the software you have no obligation to agree to them and as they restrict access to your product until you click agree, it can't be assumed that you clicking 'give me what I paid for' actually means 'I agree to this additional license'. In fact, it's pretty obvious that you'd hardly ever mean that, as EULAs lower the value of the software, not raise it to offer any enticement to agree. When software comes with a contract that says "You bought this and own it - but, if you agree to treat it as a license we'll give you these great extras..." it will start to be binding, but only if they don't conflate agreement with "just let me use the damn thing".
As to the enforceability of Microsoft EULA on Microsoft - that what it's good for. They can very well back out of one of the provisions of what they claim to be a contract, can they?
All that's needed to kill EULAs is to educate people that licenses are not required. If someone tells you that software is licensed, they are lying. Sales are sales unless the cashier/etc make it abundantly clear that it is not. A little note on the box is far from good enough. You own software just like you own a book - in totality, but unable to duplicate it or murder someone with it - ie, subject to some laws.
The users sign a contract with Blizzard when they pay. The company making WoW-Glider merely bought WoW at a retail store and signed nothing.
The company is merely reverse engineering for legal interoperability, something that's been upheld many times.
Being sued unreasonably, that's just Blizzard. The scientology of gaming.
There are two parts. They do not control access to their code - they sold that.
They do control access to the servers - the ongoing contract you sign when paying covers that.
The servers are the theater in your analogy. They can go after individual patrons who violate their individual agreements - but not the company that made "Sneaking Sized Snacks - perfect for classes and theaters".
Then how does the company ban cheaters?
Copyright is an entirely different area of law than contract. And just because the guilty party is hard to sue doesn't mean you should be able to pick someone easier.
There are a thousand precedents that establish that if it looks like a sale, it is a sale. He could follow one of those, instead of the counter-intuitive and hardly related to EULA precedents that exist.
Both ProCD and the Gateway case, major EULA "wins" are mostly tangential to the idea of EULAs being enforced where unexpected.
When you rent a car you go to a car rental company. You say "I want to rent a car". When you buy software you go to a software and hardware store, buy some cables, a game, etc. When you buy the software they tell you it's a non-refundable sale.
It's as much a sale as the cable it comes with.
Copyright statue in the US says "owners of a copy", not "licensees of a copy" so it's clearly not the default state that copyrighted works are licensed.
In fact, when this was tried with "contracts" in books a hundred years ago it was struck down after some tentative initial success from stupid judges.
Pardon me for not rolling over and taking for granted the total reversal of contract and sales law. Especially when all the proof comes from software companies abusing EULAs.
No, the true mark of your fanboy mentality is that this keep becoming polarized. "People like you", "Apple haterism", "you lack choice"...
You assume I hate Apple because I dislike the idea of having to jailbreak a device to use it in advanced mode. Grasp for many straws?
You are a waste of time, so I'll let you have the last response where you can repeat yourself again. I see no reason to read it though since I've read it twice already.
That's so big of you.
I'm not saying it's right that you only ever buy a 'llicense' to software, not a 'copy.' But that doesn't change the reality.
A few cases only tangentially related to EULAs don't change the fundamental nature of contracts.
If the transaction looks like a sale, and it does all the times I've purchased software, with hardware, books, etc... Same transaction, same lack of contract discussion.
Publishers of books tried to claim that you didn't have the right to transfer your books for money (to kill the resale market) but that was struck down and resulted in the doctrine of first sale, that exhaustion of the sellers rights at first sale, and upheld that book purchases were sales, despite putative contracts in the books stating otherwise.
17usc117a1: "... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program ..."
The law is specifically written to acknowledge the rights of owners of a copy of software. This is clearly the default state - if EULAs were the done deal software companies wanted you to think, clearly copyright statute wouldn't speak of the owner when all EULAs, which you claim are universal, disclaim this concept.
If you don't know what the terms of that EULA are, then it's your fault for buying a pig in a poke [...] Not reading and/or understanding all the ridiculously fine print on the box, and the fine print it references, isn't going to fly as an argument in court.
For a contract to be valid you have to believe that the other party understands it. If I flash a 20-page contract at you and you sign it in 30s, that can actually be grounds to void it. That's why companies who really want their contracts to stand show you through the clauses, highlighting key areas.
As for the EULA itself, clearly ripping through plastic to access your own goods, or clicking 'I Agree' to a 20-page "contract" to use your new game are not times when you can expect someone to seriously consider the possibility. Negotiations happen before money changes hands, once the sale happens you own the thing. And if it happens at a cash register without the cashier having you sign a specific contract, it's a sale. Everything after there is warnings and cover-your-ass company speak. Like all the warnings on a DVD telling you not to copy it, as if you've never heard of copyright law.
You claim to be open minded, but are taking the reactionary - "Oh noes, a company's money - fry the bastards with any available law and damn the inconvenient precedents" platform.
As for your speech, I'll mock it, not suppress it. I didn't advocate the deletion of your post, just your ritual atonement over the disgrace of the ignorant stance and bandwagon jumping.
I don't bother mentioning that WoW-Glider is for-profit software because it doesn't change anything. No, seriously. Let's say Bliz won, and next month someone is doing exactly the same thing with a debugger like IDA Pro and a python script. Then we're right back to the bad behavior because the actual guilty parties are not punished.
As for the legality of him "hacking" Bliz's software... No. He owns his copy - bought it outright at a store. Following the precedent of Sega vs Accolade he exercised his fair-use rights to decompile the program and develop a compatible add-on. Similarly, the users only modify their own software. No *hacking* happens to anything Blizzard owns - it's not like this program worms its way into the matrix or anything, merely intercepts and rewrites to packets being sent to you, to contain something you could have put there if you were at the keyboard.
You clearly do not understand what is happening, the legalities of it, of software ownership in general, the players involved, or their motivations. Yet despite this you are clearly in support of abusing copyright law to stop something that clearly is totally unrelated to copyright and clearly is covered by very contracts the users sign.
This is absolutely black and white. People violated their contracts. Other people sold a legal product. The only thing making the use of the software bad is the contract... Open and shut contract issue. I don't really care about the outcome, just that it not establish new and broken precedents in already crufty enough laws.
Perhaps my empathy with someone in Blizzard's shoes evaporated when they repeatedly abused the law to prevent legal interaction (bnetd, sc mods), knowingly sue the wrong people, etc. Harassment techniques worthy of scientology.
Here Apple is a HW vendor, and thus free from Microsoft's abuses.
Ah, yes, Apple can rely on the swift and reliable response of the Department of Justice to protect them from Microsoft's abuses.
No. Microsoft isn't a threat to Apple because they control two things, Microsoft Windows (and the VARs who rely on bulk discounts) and Microsoft Office (and theoretically the business-worthiness of anyone without it). But neither of these really apply.
Apple doesn't need access to Dell or Gateway's machines like OS/2 did, so what can Microsoft's stranglehold over those vendors do?
Apple also doesn't need Microsoft Office - even if it went away in the future there are good alternatives and the Vista experience has put a lot of companies off of the Office-upgrade treadmill. See many people wanting DOCs? PDFs are on the rise from the PHB segment because they actually retain formatting and aren't that much less painful than word docs.
So I don't think MS is much of a threat to Apple these days.
Apple needs to operate in a different market: whole computers, hardware and software both.
You wouldn't keep buying premium Apple hardware? It is pretty slick... I don't think the clones would steal much of Apple's market - more like extend Apple's market to people who'd otherwise have bought a PC because of price.
But those are customers Apple would be mostly glad to lose - the overly price conscious and low-margin ones.
As for clones matching Apple, look at the iPhone and the Air. Competitors matched some key specs (no-buttons, thickness) of each quite soon, but with huge compromises. If you want either of those products, and many do, the existence of cheap clones only makes the functioning of the real thing that much slicker.
Apple just becomes that much more successful because clones boost their market share and concentrating on high-end sales lets them be even neater (magnetic cables, etc).
It would lead to Apple going out of business [...] Tell me again how this is a better outcome?
Then Apple should just charge whatever it costs them to develop it, and let the market decide! (Thanks, I will use it.)
No, seriously. If it *really* costs $1k * #ofMacUsers to code OS X and that's more than the market will bear then maybe they should look into a subscription model or something. That's far less than a cell-phone costs for a 3-year contract. Besides, it's things like Apple and Microsoft funding discounted OSes (and browsers, etc) that kills the competition and artificially lessens the need for free software.
But, enough of the should and what if.
What laws do you see as actually giving Apple the right to buy a DVD drive and resell it over the possible complaint of its manufacturer, and yet refuse to let its own OS be bought by a similar bundler of services?
You've got entitlement feelings, but no legal justification.
I see, because MS has an evil monopoly, Apple needs to be the only one to control the sale or resale of Apple computers...
Yes, a lot. I also took the trouble to educate myself. I suggest you do the same.
Think much?
Yes, a lot. I also took the trouble to educate myself. I suggest you do the same.
Maybe you're not much of a teacher.
Well, alternately they could abandon OS X. They sure can't bring it to market directly against Windows, which has a monopoly on the market.
You went into suspended animation in 1998? Microsoft can't even use their monopoly to push Vista, let alone compete with Mac OS X.
Besides, Microsoft abused their power with the HW vendors. Here Apple is a HW vendor, and thus free from Microsoft's abuses.
If Pystar wins in court, they sure wouldn't be the only one to try the business model. So by winning such a court decision, so they'd force Apple to change behavior.
What business model, that of selling OS X to people who couldn't afford it before? How horrible.
By themselves they're bringing about a total reversal of Apple's nature, from a benevolent friend to a legal abuser like Blizzard.
Apple does whatever makes them money.
And there's nothing else that makes them money besides abusing the legal system to force a legal product off the market, thereby depriving the customers of that company and the company itself of their just profits.
This is just resale of Apple's merchandise, the way Apple resells LCDs, DVD drivers, HDs, etc. All perfectly legal.
And yet, Psystar is forcing Jobs to do do something repugnant like destroying free markets simply by competing with them. Poor Jobs, to have only two choices, do nothing or do the wrong thing.
So what would you rather do, sue the people who are cheating or sue the people that are profiting off of enabling that cheating?
Sue the people who are cheating. They're the ones who are violating their contract.
They have a way to punish cheaters already, they ban their accounts. There is no need to sue them so that part of your argument is irrelevant.
So according to you, Blizzard is already finished punishing the cheaters.
Listen, if the result of this case allows other entities to "trample on the rights of everyone", I will be the first to admit my mistake. But it just isn't going to happen.
Anything based on a nonsensical legal premise can't help but hurt everyone who has to live with that system, even if only because of the lack of faith it causes.
17-117a1 clearly allows a program to be loaded as long as that is required for its use, regardless of the wishes of the authors. To base an anti-cheating case on this is the height of lunacy. If it succeeds it won't do anything to stop the next WoW-Glider which will simply bypass the checks in another fashion, but it will turn our pristine and beautiful laws (err) into a joke, of nonsense loopholes and strange technological boundaries.
If you really think that the world would be better with a law that prevents someone making cheat software, or software that hurts someone else's business regardless of their actual usage, then maybe you should petition for a law that says that.
Instead, because you like Blizzard more than WoW-Glider's author and fans, you want to throw them the case despite huge technical errors.
It's amusing that the obvious legal use for WoW Glider is something Blizzard already destroyed, bnetd. Despite the fact that bnetd was in demand for far more than piracy reasons (people like private servers, with only their friends) Blizzard killed bnetd with an unreasonable lawsuit.
So pardon me if I actually use Blizzard's past actions to interpret their current actions.
If you do not appreciate that you can't hack their service, do not buy the game. You do not have the right to create software for the express purpose of damaging their service...that is just freaking common sense.
You don't understand that this isn't hacking, but rule-breaking, rules established in a contract. But Blizzard is suing someone else after totally failing to negotiate with the other parties to the actual contract.
There's no law against using software to press keys for you, or for writing software for people who understand that there's no law against such software.
It's a contractual dispute, how about settling it with the parties to the contract?
making a whole post without hoping for my death
While you are not in error, it is not because of any success on your part, merely the fact that I did not hope for your death in either post. I merely mentioned your self-culling as a way to improve the fitness of the herd and eliminate the shame of your foul and ill-conceived opinions on those around you.
Forced to add DRM. Yeah. FORCED to drive Psystar out of business by making their product less useful and screwing over customers of both companies and everyone who has to live with these broken laws.
No other alternatives. None. Psystar is going to make Steve Jobs, one of the richest and most powerful men, do something he'd hate to do. Just Psystar. Jobs would go to the ends of the Earth to avoid worsening user experience through DRM and EULA nonsense and ONLY Psystar is changing this. By themselves they're bringing about a total reversal of Apple's nature, from a benevolent friend to a legal abuser like Blizzard.
Think much?
Apple could embrace capitalism - the same thing that lets them buy computer components and resell them - and tolerate the same thing being done to their products. But you are right on one thing, that'll never happen.
Stop drinking the koolaid. It's not about if it hurts Apple, or if Psystar deserves this.
Apple sells a product. In accordance with the laws of the country, Psystar buys that product and resells it.
This isn't against the law. Apple is hoping to twist a law to make this a violation, but this is exactly what capitalism is. Psystar isn't even violating Apple's trademark, merely referring to it in a descriptive fashion.
As for who gets the support calls, if there were a law about that Microsoft would have fallen foul of it for making ISPs handle tech-support for their OS.
The same laws that let Apple buy DVD drives without having to ask special permission to use them, also let people buy an Apple computer (and resell it) without asking for Apple's permission.
If it didn't work this way Microsoft could bribe all the DVD drive makers to not sell to Apple and Apple would be screwed. This way all he can do is attempt to buy all stock, which merely drives up the prices. Be careful what post-sale control you wish to grant Apple, lest it be used to destroy them and everyone else by a real scam-outfit like Rambus, or SCO.
It's not the substantive point of the argument, but I don't expect you to understand the difference between an ad-hominem and an insult. Premise vs Conclusion...
If Blizzard wants to protect their business model I suggest they try to find a related law instead of fucking with the laws and ruining the world everyone else has to live in. There's a ToS which the users clearly agreed to, which gives Blizzard an open-and-shut case against them. The people who pay - the people who entered into an actual contract... You know - ones relevant to the issue at hand.
But no, that would be hard - too many little lawsuits. So Blizzard decided to sue someone totally unrelated, who isn't a party to the game or the ToS.
That's an abuse of the system. The sort of thing only worthless people do.
Then they further decided to conflate the ToS and EULA, then pretend that the EULA is part of the contract of sale when all of their lawyers know full well that the elements of a contract specifically rule out post-agreement changes such as EULAs. Deliberate intention to mis-frame the issue. Lies.
All to avoid a more costly lawsuit against the actual guilty parties.
And then you come along and support that. It's okay, you want us to know, because cheaters can cause them to lose customers. You're *glad* those cheaters are getting what they deserve, even though no cheater is being punished, the punished person is not a cheater, and the rest of us have to live with continued legal abuse and a further-broken precedent.
You're perfectly happy to trample on the rights of everyone because they're doing something you don't approve of. Willing to bury the rest of us under a mass of invasive and restrictive law simply because you don't approve. Had you been aborted we'd still be looking for a cure to cancer, and have one less empty-headed follower blindly pulling the "More Laws, Please!" lever.
And yes, I'd say that to your face. To anyone who espoused the view that we should be seen as not owning things we clearly bought, merely because our property rights aren't convenient for some company that wants to abuse the legal system. To anyone who was so glad some vilified group (cheaters) is going to get theirs that they don't actually pay attention to the claims, or proof of guilt, or to who actually gets what.
Yes every release so far has been broken, so they will all continue to be broken.
That makes sense.
And I'm jealous (of who) because you can't install background apps on an iPhone without jailbreaking...
Do you read what you write?
Personally, this isn't an iPhone thing. I'd say exactly the same if it was a Motorola phone, some unreleased Google boondoggle, or an iPhone... If you want me to buy one, let me use it without software mods that you claim violate the warranty.
You're the one who can't see why others want an ability. You're the one telling others that they're wrong for wanting it. Sounds like sour grapes and a bad case of Fanboism.
SL the 3d environment could be cool.
But SL the life replacement... People who spend real money on models/skins for their characters... People who panic about CopyBot because then people won't have to buy skins... People who buy houses, for characters that stop existing when you log off...
Just like Lambda MOO was cool, but the person who "got raped" in it was a thorough loser. Log off if you don't enjoy the game. Ignore people who don't wish to speak to. But instead they whine until they get the support of more people like them, then pass a ton of restrictive rules turning it into My Little Pony - Tea Time for People with Weak Hearts.
At that, the open-sourcing of SL is the only way it'll not be a corporate hell-hole of IRC-with-pictures lamers.
Reasonable? For them to sue someone under a totally unrelated copyright statute and pollute the legal system with false precedents?
The Terms of Service give them a way to kick off any user breaking the rules, boting is against the rules. They merely don't want to kick off the users because the users pay them money. They'd rather keep the actual cheats and merely remove the maker of the software because he doesn't pay them anything.
Of course, he's also not doing anything to them... But what the hell with being reasonable, they're Blizzard and they're buying law!
Isn't that what parents are for?
Would you stand in front of a sobbing mother and tell her that she doesn't have a right to keep her minor children from playing a rape-simulator like GTA? Huh? Would you? You heartless bastard.
Having covered that, are sex-related morals the only ones you should be able to instill in your progeny, or are theft-related ones acceptable? If so, it seems that uttering false contracts should be acceptable too, and with that you have Blizzard. Selling WoW (contract of sale, implied) and trying to act as if they licensed it.
The law says "essential step" and does not follow with "in using the software as the manufacturer intended".
You, the user, decide what's proper use. You may load Excel to do spreadsheets, or to play the flight sim easter egg, or to inject memory failures into its process space and see how long until it dies.
Sorry, but as long a Blizzard sold WoW, it gave up all these rights. They should have merely sent it to the user for free, after signup for the MMO and agreeing to the ToS. In that manner they could have shown the restrictions before finalizing the agreement, and made the agreement one to allow access to the MMO, not for ownership of the software.
Oh. And you don't own anything either. Look at them, I've paid a thief to sew "WNight owns this" labels on everything you own.
When you explain why that isn't binding you'll have explained exactly why it isn't binding when Blizzard does such a thing.
Seriously, read up on contract law. Find the section that says hidden clauses which are revealed post-agreement are valid and binding. You may be searching for a while...
So do you. Read. Self-educate. Stop accepting money from Blizzard to lie on forums. EULAs are post-sale, you've BOUGHT the software by then and aren't subject to extra conditions.
You're already infecting others with your nonsense.
They got their last cent from me when a retail version of one of their games wouldn't play in my CD drive because of copy protection. It was a burner - back when this was a bit uncommon (late 90s). When I emailed support they said it was a known issue and recommended that I buy a new CD ROM drive (not a burner).
I said this was too much and asked for a refund. They said no.
I asked for a special build (even with my name compiled in) that wouldn't check the CD drive. They said no.
I mentioned how it wouldn't have this problem if I cracked it. They said that would be illegal.
I told them selling products you know aren't going to work is illegal. They didn't reply.
Since then they've sued the bnet team, etc, etc, etc. Total jerks.
If the EULA says anything, ignore it. It came *in* the box, which you got to see well after the sale. It isn't binding.
Some say otherwise, but it'll take more than a few retarded judges to make post-sale contracts legal.
Sorry, these laws will keep getting bandied about until someone sells IBM a box with a EULA in it that purports to give the creator cash equivalent to 1% of IBMs stock each time the program is loaded into memory. At that point IBM'll simply point out that they didn't agree to that, it was hidden in something they did purchase (under the standard implied contract of sale) and not at all binding. They'll win because it's absolutely idiotic to think otherwise - "A contract you've never seen? Well, of course it must be binding, it says so!"
So far it's just big companies suing individuals and small companies. In our legal system that's a guaranteed win.