“never take legal advice from a lawyer that rides the same bus he advertises on” - George Lopez
4 Likes
You really like making strawman arguments. Must be because you have no actual response to what I said.
They didn’t sneak anything in. They wrote a EULA. You agreed to it, probably without ever reading it, and never got banned, so you never had to fight about it.
Again, just because it’s a contract doesn’t mean it’s a legal contract. There are many reasons why it could be thrown out.
Let me give you a hyperbolic example: You find some rich guy with dementia. You write a contract saying you get all of his money if you give him a hug. He signs it. You give him a hug and take all of his money.
Family finds out their inheritance is gone and sues you. You say “But I have a contract!”. Too bad you had someone who could not agree to a contract due to mental capacity sign it, so it gets thrown out when you go to court.
As far as I am aware, no one has ever gone to court over getting banned in a video game. Why would they? The cost is greater than just buying a new account. Is it legal for them to ban you without a refund? Maybe it is. Maybe it’s not. I’m not a judge. I just know that a judge hasn’t decided.
Finding out the answer would take someone caring enough and having the disposable income to literally take Blizzard to court because they got banned with no refund.
To define terms of service in relation to the EULA.
Blizzard can ban anybody for any reason. That right is specifically reserved. That it would be morally wrong and cause lashback in this case is certain, but that doesn’t mean it is not a possibility.
The Blizzard legal department are the ones who wrote the EULA. You should listen to what that says.
I mean, that definitely applies to you. You’ve gone out of your way to reinterpret the EULA into some twisted parody of itself so you can say that Blizzard is being contradictory.
3 Likes
You didn’t say the word memory, but that is what is commonly understood when somebody says “injected into the client”. This can either be done in memory or on the harddrive. Botting can be done without doing either.
Correct, because it isn’t.
They’ve been open about this for years now.
This is true, but can you find any public reference to authorization of any MB software? The only thing sanctioned appears to be the act of multiboxing itself, which can be done without software. The software itself still violates the EULA.
You’ve proven nothing.
Tomatoes are generally called a vegetable rather than a fruit, despite the botanical definition. So the decision you quote was accepting the probable intent behind the definition of tomatoes in this law rather than the botanical definition.
I did have an actual response. You even responded to it below.
Is your understanding of sarcasm that lacking? Jeez.
I agreed to it after reading it, and have never been banned. So yeah, I’ve never had to fight with Blizzard over that.
It is a binding agreement that you’ve agreed to. They could literally write in that they’re going to consume your soul, but it’s a binding agreement/contract, not a legal one. There is a distinction. That you fail to recognize it is not my problem.
There’s no real ambiguity to be seen here. Blizzard has utilized, is utilizing and will continue to utilize the clause in the agreement that states they reserve the right to terminate your agreement at any point in time for any reason, without being required to provide that reason for you.
They’re not legally required to provide that service for you.
Which would be rather foolish, given the rights of access Blizzard retains control over. It’s their product, not yours. You don’t legally “own” your game. You are paying for a license to access the game. The terms of that license are laid out clearly in the EULA.
Ah, so now we’re taking what is “commonly understood” to refer to what I specifically said.
Gotcha, you just admitted you have no point.
And it will still be punished, because methods of identification exist.
2 Likes
Anyways, might jump back in later when I’ve got the energy for the sheer lunacy in here. Peace all.
1 Like
They do have common sense…
Why would Activision/Blizzard care if the gold economy is tanking over the price of some herb due to the high supply of it…
What they actually care about more is literally the fact that the multiboxer is paying/subbed for 20 accounts.
Unfortunately this is real life and real businesses run on real life money and shareholders love to see high account number figures, not in-game economy/gold. And so far no one is unsubbing from wow just because Zin’athid sells for 40g each rather than the formerly rip of prices of 100-200g+ each.
Simply put, you need to remember that Blizzard is a business, they are not interested in your opinion/experience unless it cuts into their profits or makes their shareholders upset.
And how do you determine the probable intent?
By common usage. Not by what the person who wrote it claims they meant.
That’s what I’ve proven. You not understanding the proof doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Bye now.
Dear, did you read my post earlier about how Blizzard enforced criminal DMCA laws against a bot maker because they claimed that copying the game from the harddrive to RAM is an “illegal copy” and thus a copyright violation?
If their legal department can skew the intent of copyright law to fit their novel interpretation where no real copy was made, do you really think it is any accident that this legal document was deliberately made overly broad?
1 Like
This is another thing which has never been adjudicated.
Many legal experts believe it wouldn’t go Blizzard’s way.
No agreement is “binding” until a judge confirms that is.
Oh, dude. Lay off the sauce. You’re gonna blow a gasket with all that critical thinking.
A. Yes. I can read. No, I am not easily swayed.
B. The EULA does not forbid multiboxing, you misread.
C. The “authorized list” was not given to me, if you actually read what I typed. (but hey, keep reading things into your narrative, you do that well - even though you’re still wrong)
D. Multiboxing and it’s software IS allowed. Yet again, you’re clipping pieces of the ToS to fit your narrative.
E. Your overly-literal definition of “automation” is not how Blizzard defines it in regards to WoW.
F. Why do we need to quote the ToS/EULA anymore? You just twist whatever part you need to fit how you feel about the topic, go back to flat earth please.
Actually this is false.
It’s long been an issue when it comes to digital ownership of games, it’s why every legal consultant on the issue would tell you to buy physical copies of your game instead of digital because you don’t own the digital content.
You are being given permission to access said content, like Netflix in a way. You only own the physical items, not the digital.
They authorized the act, not the software itself. Based off the EULA language, MBing would only be okay if it were done through hardware only.
It both changes and facilitates the gameplay of all the connected characters, since this style of play would not be possible (or very difficult) without facilitating software.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that multiboxing is LEGAL and PERMITTED in WoW.
Deal. With. It.
1 Like