Ban cheaters vs Customers Rights

[Drakesong]

Lately Blizzard banned players for cheating and botting in Diablo 3. Since Diablo 3 is online only, those players will have to buy another copy of the game in order to be able to play again.
In this case, you can clearly see two normative commands in collision. In one side, you have the Blizzard's Terms of Agreement, where it states that cheaters and such will be bannes. On the other side you have the Costumers Rights, that states that you have the right to consume the product you buy, the way you want.
One was made by a company trying to protect their players, and the other was made by the legislative power, made to protect all costumers.

When Blizzard bans someone, forcing him to buy another copy of the game, it's acting against the law, since you have taken away your right to consume your product. A company cannot simply make their own laws that goes against the State laws.

Legally speaking, Blizzard should only be able to ban someone based on a judicial decision, where it was proved that the acts performed by the player were against the rights of the others players.

Just something for you all to think about.

[strossus001]

You don't own the Diablo 3 or the account you create using the key.

You buy the right to play.

Legally speaking, you don't have a clue.

[Celidion]

You don't buy the game, you buy a license to play it. That's how it works IRC.

[Caiada]

Play by their rules or fuck off. It's in the agreement you signed.

---------- Post added 2012-06-17 at 11:33 PM ----------

You don't buy the game, you buy a license to play it. That's how it works IRC.

Pretty much, and Blizzard retains the right to revoke that license at any time for rules they expressly lay out.

[Winstonwolfe]

Costumers Rights,

Costumers Rights have been infringed upon for far too long imo.

[Deleted]

Not to be a jackass or anything, but may I inquire as to whether you have your law degree specifically in consumer law? Also, you are obviously aware that different countries have different laws, right? Are you well versed in all of them, or are you talking from a specific country's point of view?

Showing some credentials would be good when starting threads like this. I'm sure people would take your word it.

[rhorle]

Legally speaking, Blizzard should only be able to ban someone based on a judicial decision, where it was proved that the acts performed by the player were against the rights of the others players.

Just something for you all to think about.

Blizzard isn't the first company to ban players from an online game. It doesn't matter if the game is online only, offline only, or online and offline. If it is illegal for Blizzard and other companies to do this then why haven't such companies been challenged in the court of law about such bans? Literally millions of accounts have been banned from online games. If it what companies were doing was actually illegal then there would have already been a class action law suit against the companies.

Hell Runescape banned over 7 million bots in a few days http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/10...s-of-bot-bans/ If it was illegal don't you think someone would have sued and companies would have stopped doing it by now? The question becomes this:

Why Blizzard, why complain now?

[Cthulhu 2020]

You don't own Diablo 3 when you buy it. When you buy it, it is a license to play Blizzard's game, under their terms and conditions.

[Mormolyce]

They're banning people for cosplay?

From a legal perspective what you wrote there is complete nonsense. When you sign the EULA (and/or TOS I'm not sure which) you're forming a contract with Blizzard for the license of their game. They stipulate in this contract what constitutes a violation of it and the penalties which may be applicable. They are 100% within their legal right to ban, same with any game company. You don't like it don't sign the license agreement - ie, don't play the game. It's all spelled out in black and white.

THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE GAME (DEFINED BELOW), YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE GAME

http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/d3_eula.html

First line. In all caps. Here's a thought: read what you sign.

2) Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 above is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the “License Limitations”). Any use of the Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights in and to the Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:

...

B. Use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Game experience, including without limitation, mods that violate the terms of this License Agreement or the Terms of Use;

Section 2B. Scroll your mouse down less than a page.

[Catharlex]

The lack of a Clown Outfit is indeed them infringing upon my Costumers Rights!

[endersblade]

They're banning people for cosplay?

Lol, totally beat me to it.

Also, this topic has been beaten into the ground. You do not own the software, you do not own your character. All you do is 'rent' the space on their server in order to play. They can, at any time, without any reason what so ever (it even says this in the TOS/EULA, btw) close your account. If one of their GMs gets into a tissy with his missus, goes to work, and randomly shuts people's accounts off, they are perfectly allowed to do so. It's in the agreement that YOU AGREED TO. Sure, while in my example the guy will probably get fired and the accounts turned back on, again, Blizzard can shut your account off for any reason. Doesn't matter if you are a botter or not.

[vindicatorx]

Legally speaking, Blizzard should only be able to ban someone based on a judicial decision, where it was proved that the acts performed by the player were against the rights of the others players.

So you are suggesting having a courtroom decide if someone should be banned or not? Why on earth would you want taxpayer dollars to go to something as stupid as this. The Terms of Use are easy to understand, you cheat you get banned. It's also very clear you own nothing you paid for the ability to use the software as long as you adhere to the TOS. You violate them and your contract is null and void. Just like when you see a sticker saying removing this tag voids your warranty.

[ngc2440]

On the other side you have the Costumers Rights, that states that you have the right to costume the product you buy, the way you want.

FIFY, and I like to dress mine up as Grr.

Sounds like to me that Drakesong was banned and now is having a hissy about getting his hand caught in the cookie jar.

[Agent Mercury]

How does this effect my costuming?

Also you bought a license that is voided by certain things. Not the game.

[rhorle]

So you are suggesting having a courtroom decide if someone should be banned or not? Why on earth would you want taxpayer dollars to go to something as stupid as this. The Terms of Use are easy to understand, you cheat you get banned. It's also very clear you own nothing you paid for the ability to use the software as long as you adhere to the TOS. You violate them and your contract is null and void. Just like when you see a sticker saying removing this tag voids your warranty.

Well everyone could be like South Korea. But if everyone did that then everyone would still bot, cheat, and hack. They would now hate the RIAA equivalent and say how terrible, greedy, and evil they are. And everything would be the same except for some people being made example of with legal fines and legal costs. Instead of now where they are just out the price of they paid for the game.

I guess it is better for a consumer to have to possibly pay thousands of dollars in court costs and fines instead of $60 dollars? I can already tell you what most consumers would be in favor of and it won't be the original posters position.

[Vook]

TOS

Read it.

You play by Blizzard's rules, or you get banned. End of story.

[Splatter]

Consumers Rights, that states that you have the right to consume the product you buy, the way you want

Thats not even remotely accurate. Just because I buy a car doesn't give me the right to drive it how ever I like. The rights of the masses > the rights of the individual.

[Darsithis]

On the other side you have the Costumers Rights, that states that you have the right to consume the product you buy, the way you want.

No you don't. You have the right to consume (use) the product you purchase in the manner specified by the manufacturer. Why do you think so many household products are prefixed with "It is against Federal Regulations to use this product in a manner not consistent with manufacturer directions" (or somesuch, I didn't bother to grab one, just remembering the basics)? The same applies here with WoW and D3. You have the right to use it only in the manner outlined in the agreement you signed.

[Reubane]

On the other side you have the Costumers Rights, that states that you have the right to consume the product you buy, the way you want.

This only applies if you are a fashion designer of sorts. I would also like to state that a physical copy of Diablo III can in deed, still be consumed after a ban, although not very tasty or nutritious.

[strossus001]

$10 says he's never going to post in this obvious troll thread again =/