summed up nicelyWarhawk137 said:I spent money on a car, doesn't mean I shouldn't be punished if I drive 60 through a school zone drunk.Mr Ink 5000 said:"are Blizzard really gonna punish people who paid money for this game" so what about those who paid who don't cheat. cheaters are punishing them.
I dd my part to help these poor souls:FalloutJack said:Aw, how cute! Someone there thinks Anonymous still matters!
The point of he matter is that people do dumb things, aaand they never think that consequences shall befall them or that it's fair when the rules are enforced. It isn't like this forum where there may be a mistake in judgement. They cheated. They got red flagged by a program made to check for that. Their fault.
Someone probably already mentioned this, but... Welcome to the Digital Age.JUMBO PALACE said:I have never cheated in a video game nor will I ever. I don't see the point in playing a competitive game and cheating. Where's the fun in that?
That being said, I still don't understand why it's okay to take away someone's property that they paid for just because they broke the rules. Suspension? Sure. forced into a cheater pool? Sure. A badge marking them as a cheater? Sure. But revoking someone's game seems a little extreme to me. If I cheat while playing Monopoly, Hasbro doesn't send G-men to my house to take away my board and pieces. Maybe the difference is that with a real life game you have to face the judgement of your friends/family/the people sitting across from you. And I do suppose that cheaters need to be kept out of ranked especially to prevent the more serious play from being impacted.
I don't want to play with cheaters just as much as the next guy, but I guess I just can't muster up the energy to get enraged over someone using an aimbot in a computer game, and I don't like the idea of big poppa Blizzard stepping in and taking away people's game that they paid for. These reactions are hilarious though. In the end they all signed the EULA that said cheating won't be tolerated so hey, they should have seen this coming.
The reason this hasn't been closed is because it came before the news thread.BeerTent said:There's already a thread for this. We don't need another one.
No they're not. 1) No legally binding contract can be signed by a minor (and many minors do sign off on EULAs). 2) As was mentioned previously, legally binding contracts need to be signed, normally with multiple signatures, dates, and witness signatures to make them legally binding. One of the reasons that EULA's are not binding is because they can be "signed" by your cat walking across your keyboard, or you dropping your controller. 3) EULAs do not override actual laws. If an EULA runs contrary to an existing law, then said EULA is invalid regardless of whoever signed it. There have been actual legal cases about this, particularly in Europe.BeerTent said:These. Are. Legally. Binding. Contracts.
That's not how contract law works.Austin Manning said:No they're not. 1) No legally binding contract can be signed by a minor (and many minors do sign off on EULAs). 2) As was mentioned previously, legally binding contracts need to be signed, normally with multiple signatures, dates, and witness signatures to make them legally binding. One of the reasons that EULA's are not binding is because they can be "signed" by your cat walking across your keyboard, or you dropping your controller. 3) EULAs do not override actual laws. If an EULA runs contrary to an existing law, then said EULA is invalid regardless of whoever signed it. There have been actual legal cases about this, particularly in Europe.
With software in particular, it's more like paying for five hours of go-karting, crashing it into a wall, and then claiming that you own the go-kart and trying to take it home with you.BeerTent said:How is this any different, if, I, say... Pay for 5 hours of Go-Karting, and then ram the Go-Kart into the wall? I paid for 5 hours, yet you're kicking me out after 15 minutes?! What is this?!
Would these contracts have been taken to court if they have no legal recourse? It sounds like an awfully large waste of time of the European court system.Austin Manning said:No they're not. 1) No legally binding contract can be signed by a minor (and many minors do sign off on EULAs). 2) As was mentioned previously, legally binding contracts need to be signed, normally with multiple signatures, dates, and witness signatures to make them legally binding. One of the reasons that EULA's are not binding is because they can be "signed" by your cat walking across your keyboard, or you dropping your controller. 3) EULAs do not override actual laws. If an EULA runs contrary to an existing law, then said EULA is invalid regardless of whoever signed it. There have been actual legal cases about this, particularly in Europe.BeerTent said:These. Are. Legally. Binding. Contracts.
bastardofmelbourne said:Any consensual agreement between two parties that involves some kind of exchange of or for something of value - called consideration - is a legally binding contract. You don't need paper, signatures, or witnesses to have a contract. What all those things do is help prove that a contract exists, so that if someone denies agreeing to the contract at a later date, you can sue them for breach.
I don't think that is true in Europe. There are age barriers for certain forms of contracts and it is up to the merchant to enforce that their customers are allowed to buy. If they don't do, the contract is invalid and the merchant usually sits on any resulting losses. OTOH with at least 7 years you count as old enough for some contracts and with 14 for most. So it is rarely a big deal. But if some 11 year old starts a couple of online abbonements, it might be invalid and the only way for the merchant to get some of the money is claiming damages for lack of parental oversight or something.End user license agreements are valid contracts in that they govern the terms by which the software is licensed to you by the software owner. The age of majority shouldn't be an issue. There's a presumption that the person signing the contract has the capacity to honour the contract; a minor who signed an EULA can't get out of it by pleading their age. There are also various types of contracts, such as employment contracts and contracts for necessities, that are considered enforceable on or by a minor; this is to stop people cheating minors out of work or products and then claiming the contract is void due to their age.
correct. But the EU has a lot of pretty strict consumer protection laws and a lot of the standard EULA-clauses are invalid here. Sometimes it gets to court. Pretty often actually.3) This is the part you're correct on; an EULA cannot override national law, in the same way that no contract can override national law (you cannot enter into a contract to perform a crime, for example) but any competent legal team will draft an EULA that is compliant with the law of the territories in which it is distributed. Lazy legal teams will just copy-paste an EULA from their primary jurisdiction and call it a day.
English is the new lingua franca. I don't think even half of the forum members are native speakers.But if I am, that doesn't change the fact that most of the people here - being English speakers - likely bought Overwatch under a common law jurisdiction.
Theoretically true. But that is also something that is regularly challanged in European courts. While things like limiting the use for certain actions only and especcially forbidding decompiling and stuff is pretty much accepted, making the software unusable later (when it was not clearly time limited in the beginning) or forbidding reselling is quite often not tolerated. But that is a case by case stuff, really complicated.Licensing is an entirely separate issue, but one I also see misinterpreted here, so:
If the contract was invalid, he would have the right to get his money back here. But yes, there are so many reasons why no one brings that up.BeerTent said:1. Every single EULA says, if you're below X age, or the legal age of consent in your country, then a parent or guardian needs to accept it. If you're 15 and you agree, that's actually a reason the licensee can revoke your access. Bringing this one up would be a legal shitstorm, but it would be interesting to see one day.
That is a very bad example. Not only are laws around sexual stuff very different around the world (contraxt law has to work for international contracts, but this stuff is more local in scope and thus far more varied), it also touches all the strange laws that allow legal prostitution where it exists (and makes contracts with sexual stuff possible) and still maintain the crimes of sexual assault or rape.Contracts aren't this thing, where, you're A-okay to break the law if I agree to it. If we sign a contract, saying we have to plough each-other every day for a year, it's still extremely possible for one of us to commit sexual assault. Oh, well, the contract says we have to have sweaty man-sex! No, doesn't work that way. Contracts aren't. "We can ignore this law, and you're okay with that." That's a badly written one, and may fail to hold up in a court.