This sums up the internet quite well.
5 Likes
Because they literally can. LOL
Yes, contracts can preempt some aspects of state law. Contracts essentially create laws between the parties to the contract. Most of the state laws regarding contracts are “default” rules, that is, if the contract does not mention something regarding X, then X is handled however the default rules would handle it. But if a contract does say something regarding X, then the contract supersedes the default rules.
Contracts are part of the law, and if contract law allows contracting parties to waive rights (as in a release which gives away the right to sue) or make a non-competition agreement (which self-limits freedom of activity) or do anything else that limits their rights then that is allowed by “the law”.
Not to mention, there’s also the ability to choose a state’s laws for the contract, if they see fit:
A “choice of law” or “governing law” provision in a contract allows the parties to agree that a particular state’s laws will be used to interpret the agreement, even if they live in (or the agreement is signed in) a different state.
So you’re using a state’s law that’s most likely irrelevant for MANY reasons.
2 Likes
They were the winners after all. But like I said later it’s not like I actually think they will go this route. Just a thought.
Contracts can only operate within the bounds of law. If a law specifically allows or does not forbid an action, then go for it, but if something is prohibited by law without a contractual exception, the relevant part of the contract is not going to be legal. You can create a contract within the confines of law, but you cannot supersede it.
“Yes your honor this homicide was perfectly legal because the victim signed a contract” probably won’t hold up very well in court. At all.
You don’t get to pick and choose whatever you want in a contract and supersede law; it has to be within what law permits.
I’m done discussing this with you. You came in here with a negative non-constructive attitude and have persisted.
did some streamer whine about this recently or something? it’s weird that we’re seeing multiple posts on this topic.
also: forum armchair lawyers. /gigglesnort
6 Likes
… you have no idea what you’re talking about. Corporate contract law is nowhere near the same as some homicide.
Think before you speak. Because your armchair lawyering is making you look worse and worse.
I came in here with facts that WE KNOW NOTHING and you’re spreading false information.
I’m sorry you’re incapable of recognizing that.
3 Likes
The issue no one is mentioning is that Blizzard likely doesn’t own the model design themselves. These were actual motorcycles that were designed & built by someone outside the company who was also marketing their brand to make and sell custom motorcycles. I’m pretty sure Blizzard cannot do a thing with Deathwheel in game without getting the designer’s permission. Not even a recolor.
I’m just guessing there, but I used to watch American Choppers. As well as the Azeroth Choppers web series where this contest came from. But because the American Chopper folks designed & created actual working motorcycles with their designs it’s probably a safe bet to assume they have some intellectual property ownership here.
6 Likes
I’ve brought that up in other threads, yes. And as OP fails to understand, corporate contracts are going to be complex and well defined when it comes to such things as this— especially when it’s a physical creation from another company.
2 Likes
I read that in Sgt Shultz’s voice from Hogans Heros.
5 Likes
Why didn’t the alliance motorcycle receive the same treatment?
It did, but it lost the contest it was created for. That’s the issue between the two. Both were designed for a contest, one won, and was free to everyone for a limited time. Kind of like the tree mount we all recently received. The other lost, but was placed in game for a 100k gold sink (which was actually quite a bit back then).
1 Like
Heh, someone makes a constructive thread and gets pooped all over with lies and insults for no real reason. Now I remember why I got tired of this community. I knew coming back for 9.2 was a mistake. /unsub
Anyhoo, a recolor needs to come back or something to get rid of this “Horde actually lost” cloud. I’m not giving up on this unlike others. It’s awful. Bobby just needs to sell a yacht to pay the fine and bring this back.
No, a recolor would give horde an extra mount.
Now, if it’s a recolor only people without the original can get, sure.
Buvyou gotta get it past the lawyers first.
So it’ll cancel out the bumblebee mount then. Horde gets a recolor of an old mount that people want and alliance keeps their exclusive bee mount. Win-win.
FOMO strikes again!
2 Likes
We want this mount.
And any sensible player would notice said page is dated in 2014. The sense of “urgency” would quickly fade when they did some basic math and determined you are talking about something from 8 years ago…
2 Likes
Good. Maybe that will satisfy Horde players and they’ll feel like they actually won the contest.
The feeling I’m getting from the forums is most people think the Alliance won.
Doesn’t OCC own the legal rights and looks of the Warlord’s Deathwheel? They built the bike, Blizzard just made a model of it based on what OCC created. I would think the same if Blizzard licensed the 2022 Ford 150 to model it in game. It would be a temporary contract, not a permanent license. I thinking that is why it was offered a limited time. The Alliance bike was a different contract with OCC, and I’m sure if OCC objected the use of that look in game, Blizzard would pull that bike too. When you tie it with the California Sweepstakes law, I can see why we’ll never see the Warlord bike again.
From what I recall, Blizzard approached OCC and commissioned two bikes. From what I understand OCC owns the looks and rights to any custom bike they build. Blizzard did a Branding tradeoff (very common practice). To paraphrase Yogurt “We put the pictures name on all the products”. One contact was limited to a certain time period, and the other was a indefinite license. I’m sure there are residuals involved between OCC and Blizzard in regards to the Alliance bike.
As for recolors and stuff like that, I don’t think that will happen. Copyright and Trademark laws are very specific when it come to derivative works of a product.
People are seeming to ignore Federal Copyrights and Trademarks laws, and just focusing on the California law, which I think doesn’t play a great deal into this.
1 Like
And besides, who wants to have a recolor which does not suit anyone’s taste?
I really don’t understand why people keep parroting this. The bee mount is a pathflight mount exclusive to the Alliance. The chances in us getting this mount were slim to begin with.