Diablo® III

Legal Perspective: Witnessed a Scammer Get Banned

(Locked)

I don't know how long you have been in "law school", but almost every point you raised would be a topic of discussion in class, but has little to zero application outside of your classroom.

In D3, you paid only for the rights to access the game. You do not pay any fees like you do to a cable company as a subscriber. You paid a one time fee, to "rent" the game. Internet servers and access to said servers are not paid for by your rental fee. Your analogy to the cable company would have been shot down by one of your fellow legal students no sooner than the words were out of your mouth.

Secondly, most of your references about law do not apply to online issues. In fact, most attorneys know absolutely nothing about how to litigate or have knowledge of the laws involved with the internet. There are so many factors involved, that unless you hire a well known business lawyer who specializes in the internet, you have wasted your money.

The reality is this. Blizzard has sole right to ban your account at anytime for any reason, and it is protected by DMCA, BAC, BCP and other copyright laws. In fact, as long as they have a EULA and you agree to it, you are bound by whatever choices Blizzard makes. It doesn't matter whether you feel its ethical, but illegal or unethical and legal.

DRM allows for this type of control, and DRM is allowed by DMCA. Blizzard by law, can do almost anything it wants when it comes to controlling their product and who uses it and how they use it.

As a law student, you should recognize the phrase. "including, but not limited to". Blizzard can ban you for everything they specifically tell you, but are not limited to just those. Anything else not specifically listed is still allowed, because they are not limited to only what they wrote down. It is classic legal jargon to protect people and companies from things their LAWYERS couldn't think of when they wrote their documents.


Are you sure you are not confusing the Blizzard TOS with the latest JP Morgan Chase settlement with the Justice Department?


i get that you think you're intelligent. I think WE ALL GET IT. You're a big bad first year law student. Awesome.


Wrong. I'm a 67 year old retired lawyer. Retired from law at 54. Photography was always my passion. Got into PCs kind of late and I became so obsessed with computer graphics it was starting to interfere with my work. Played with Photoshop and some 3d programs for a few years and then it happened -- i discovered oline MMOs and D2 and have been a hard core gamer ever since :-)
Edited by hawkeye#1460 on 6/9/2013 12:10 PM PDT
On the other side of this coin, if I were to sell you a microwave (or anything really) in person, and it clearly was an avocado, yet I insisted it was a microwave (or whatever). Would you agree to buy said microwave-avocado?

The point is there are tons of idiots in the world who will buy microwave-avocados. Knowing full well a fruit is not a microwave, then expect to use it as a microwave. The same logic applies to selling someone an item for a retarded price or buying something for a pittance. If they don't know the value of the item and you sell/buy to/from them for something other than what it's worth does that make it scamming too as you're essentially preying upon their stupidity?

As for the "lifetime" license thing. Any court would rule that there was an implied reasonable minimal length to the license to begins with. Due to the nature of the license it wouldn't be deemed a "lifetime" license in any case other than referring to the lifetime of the product. Which is reasonable to expect that your software should function correctly for the duration of the product's availability.

As to the questionable nature of the validity of EULA documents. No contract is legally valid in every scope it claims when it comes to consumer protection laws. It could be argued that because "the average person" can not reasonably comprehend all the legal jargon used in such documents and agreements that it would invalidate itself. In those cases "the average person" refers to the dumbest among us. That's not to say it would be a valid argument to use in a legal battle, but it illustrates that there are many, many ways to examine and view such agreements and that they would be subject to the interpretation of any presiding judge in the event that it went to court.

I personally agree that stupid people who blindly click without checking to see if their "microwave" isn't an "avocado" do deserve what they get. But it does suck that people are allowed to sell said "fruity microwaves" as well. =P
91 Undead Warlock
6940
All this wasted time to defend a rotten cheater's right not to get banned. Do any of you actually have a clue here?
On the other side of this coin, if I were to sell you a microwave (or anything really) in person, and it clearly was an avocado, yet I insisted it was a microwave (or whatever). Would you agree to buy said microwave-avocado?

The point is there are tons of idiots in the world who will buy microwave-avocados. Knowing full well a fruit is not a microwave, then expect to use it as a microwave. The same logic applies to selling someone an item for a retarded price or buying something for a pittance. If they don't know the value of the item and you sell/buy to/from them for something other than what it's worth does that make it scamming too as you're essentially preying upon their stupidity?

As for the "lifetime" license thing. Any court would rule that there was an implied reasonable minimal length to the license to begins with. Due to the nature of the license it wouldn't be deemed a "lifetime" license in any case other than referring to the lifetime of the product. Which is reasonable to expect that your software should function correctly for the duration of the product's availability.

As to the questionable nature of the validity of EULA documents. No contract is legally valid in every scope it claims when it comes to consumer protection laws. It could be argued that because "the average person" can not reasonably comprehend all the legal jargon used in such documents and agreements that it would invalidate itself. In those cases "the average person" refers to the dumbest among us. That's not to say it would be a valid argument to use in a legal battle, but it illustrates that there are many, many ways to examine and view such agreements and that they would be subject to the interpretation of any presiding judge in the event that it went to court.

I personally agree that stupid people who blindly click without checking to see if their "microwave" isn't an "avocado" do deserve what they get. But it does suck that people are allowed to sell said "fruity microwaves" as well. =P


In addition, don't forget the domestic law.

PS* Finally I see someone knowledgeable in law. Or, insight.
Edited by Calamiter#3393 on 6/9/2013 12:26 PM PDT
06/09/2013 12:21 PMPosted by Calamiter
PS* Finally I see someone knowledgeable in law.


That sad thing is that I am in no way even close to a lawyer. This is more an exercise in common sense.
06/09/2013 12:27 PMPosted by TotesMyGoat
PS* Finally I see someone knowledgeable in law.


That sad thing is that I am in no way even close to a lawyer. This is more an exercise in common sense.


Oh well, see my edit then. :P
06/09/2013 12:29 PMPosted by Calamiter
Oh well, see my edit then. :P


That being said. I have some excellent microwave-avocados if anyone is interested. =P
06/09/2013 12:27 PMPosted by TotesMyGoat
PS* Finally I see someone knowledgeable in law.


That sad thing is that I am in no way even close to a lawyer. This is more an exercise in common sense.


Law not based on statutes is called the Common Law. It is made by judges based on prior case law.The Common Law strives to make common sense.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is this is not a situation in the real world, but Blizzards - they own the world, the AH, your toons, their items, the forums, everything. Once you clicked on AGREE to the TOS and EULA, your $60 is gone.

Keep your nose clean, or face the consequences from King B.

And personally, OP, I would've laughed that scammer right out of the coffee house.
Serves him right.
06/09/2013 12:20 PMPosted by Deadru
All this wasted time to defend a rotten cheater's right not to get banned. Do any of you actually have a clue here?


Where does this viewpoint even come from? Is it just that this game is populated by a bunch of 12 year olds and people who have never had to do anything for themselves out in the real world?
What everyone seems to be forgetting is this is not a situation in the real world, but Blizzards - they own the world, the AH, your toons, their items, the forums, everything. Once you clicked on AGREE to the TOS and EULA, your $60 is gone.

Keep your nose clean, or face the consequences from King B.

And personally, OP, I would've laughed that scammer right out of the coffee house.
Serves him right.


+1 I'd even point a finger while I laughed :D
What everyone seems to be forgetting is this is not a situation in the real world, but Blizzards - they own the world, the AH, your toons, their items, the forums, everything. Once you clicked on AGREE to the TOS and EULA, your $60 is gone.

Keep your nose clean, or face the consequences from King B.

And personally, OP, I would've laughed that scammer right out of the coffee house.
Serves him right.


This is cool until Blizz starts banning people for stuff like leeching xp and items, cause people who do that are technically ruining the gaming experience for the players they leech off of.
06/09/2013 12:31 PMPosted by TotesMyGoat
Oh well, see my edit then. :P


That being said. I have some excellent microwave-avocados if anyone is interested. =P


This is your brain on microwaved avacados:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J_6T6xwb27c/T72Qz5CRKpI/AAAAAAAAN6I/wT01RboMJK8/s1600/avocado+frog+dip.jpg
They don't need a reason to ban an account. Besides it's not in their best interest to just randomly ban people for no reason but it is in their best interest to ban scammers, hackers, cheats, etc. If they allow the scammers, hackers, cheats, etc to keep doing what they do then the game will not be enjoyable for the majority of the honest people. When the game becomes unenjoyable for those honest people they quit playing and blizzard loses out on that money.
You broke the rules that blizzard set forth and now you're paying that price.
06/09/2013 01:01 PMPosted by hawkeye


That being said. I have some excellent microwave-avocados if anyone is interested. =P


This is your brain on microwaved avacados:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J_6T6xwb27c/T72Qz5CRKpI/AAAAAAAAN6I/wT01RboMJK8/s1600/avocado+frog+dip.jpg


I lol'd.
You keep complaining about being punished for a "non existent policy." Then when someone brings up a policy, (i.e. the EULA) you say it doesn't count. I find that specious at best, amigo.


I'm not sure how you can support a "we can ban you at any time for whatever reason we want" policy. I really just can't think of any reason for why that policy is a good idea.

They don't need a reason to ban an account. Besides it's not in their best interest to just randomly ban people for no reason but it is in their best interest to ban scammers, hackers, cheats, etc. If they allow the scammers, hackers, cheats, etc to keep doing what they do then the game will not be enjoyable for the majority of the honest people. When the game becomes unenjoyable for those honest people they quit playing and blizzard loses out on that money.
You broke the rules that blizzard set forth and now you're paying that price.


You really shouldn't lump scammers into the same group as hackers. It really is totally different. The only reason that this scam works is that people think they're getting a really good deal. The thinking is something like, "Oh man! This guy I'm about to trade with thinks his ring is only worth 10m when it's really worth 15m, I'm getting a great deal from this guy!" Truthfully, the guy who gets scammed in this situations is just as guilty of "*Acquiring items or any other 'possessions' from another player through misinformation, confusion, or fraud (Scamming)" as the scammer.
OP, The non scam policy you provided has to do with the victims of scam. The policy that covers those who infringe on the fairness and honesty of the game is covered in the "Exploitation Policy." As a law student you should probably check the literature a bit more before you so heavily make claims. Just because one law removes help for the victim does not mean there is not another does provide punishment for the offender.

https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/diablo-iii-exploitation-policy
"Accounts found to be participating in dishonest behavior are promptly suspended or closed. "

This is the policy they used in this case. It took me all of 5 seconds to find, and likely someone else has found this already and brought it to your attention.


I chose not to respond to most of the replies here either because it was off-topic or it was just personal attack against me.

I do think you are on the right track but not entirely. The "exploitation policy" you refer to says this:

Abuse of Game Mechanics

Abuse of game mechanics occurs when a player takes advantage of Diablo III game systems. This category includes using/distributing game mechanics in a manner unintended by their design that:

Negatively affects another hero or their gameplay
If a player is found to have abused/distributed such game mechanics, they may:

Be given a verbal warning
Subsequent offenses will result in temporary suspension from the game


What does "negatively affects another hero of their gameplay" even mean? What would be an example of this? It's so broad and ambiguous that it's meaningless. It basically just say "don't be bad mmk?" There's no such thing.

What about "using/distributing game mechanics in a manner unintended"? Using trade window is exactly the type of mechanic intended to trade items between people. What you put into the trade window and what you accept is entirely within the game mechanics. Now if you accept something you didn't like or you were careless, that is not an abuse of game mechanics by the other party. The other party used the mechanics exactly the way it was intended. Blizzard cannot police what people trade or don't trade and for how much. Why can't you sell a potion for 1 billion? Why can't you tell someone a flawless square gem is worth 1 million? You can't regulate that. You can only regulate from the receiving end - to review what's in the window and accepting/rejecting.

The link you provided does not say anything about scamming. There is no such thing.

I am not saying item swapping is ethical or even that the guy should not be banned. What I am saying is Blizzard can't just step in as a moral police and ban people for something that isn't even against the rules. Blizzard, as a company, must adhere to its own policies and can't rob people of their money by arbitrarily taking paid privileges away.

You really shouldn't lump scammers into the same group as hackers. It really is totally different.


The intent isn't. And if you seriously believe that someone who doesn't care, or know (particularly when values are almost wholly arbitrary) that they're short-selling themselves are anywhere remotely near the equal of someone intentionally ripping people off - or lying to them about what they're actually going to trade - you need some remedial courses in logic 101, and perhaps english as well.
This topic is locked.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]