King Rat (gkr) wrote,
King Rat
gkr

End User License Agreements (E.U.L.A.s)

Game players say Blizzard invades privacy

Blizzard said that its own scanning of World of Warcraft players' computers is different from that of the Everquest situation, because Blizzard spells out in the game's end-user license agreement, or EULA, that the company maintains the right to perform such anti-hacking scans. Players like Dennis and others who have complained about the scanning on the game's official forums don't have much of a leg to stand on, Blizzard says.

People should read contracts, Lagrave said. Whenever we update our game, that EULA is always displayed so that people have to accept it every time. So it's been in their face many times.

Kramer agreed that players need to be more careful about reading what they agree to.

People should read the EULA, Kramer said. If they don't, that's like saying, I didn't read the contract before I signed it. Why does the devil own my soul now?

This kind of thinking irritates me to some degree. I can have a lot of sympathy for people who don't read E.U.L.A.s, because they are dense and require lawyers to understand. I'm a smart guy, and groking the myriad terms of a E.U.L.A. is tough for me. The guy quoted here provides the necessary context though it isn't emphasized. These companies intend to be the devil trying to put one past unsuspecting rubes. And then they turn around and try to argue that they aren't the evil because the rubes weren't bright enough to figure out they who was the devil.

Here's an analogy. I walk up to you and jokingly tell you I'm going to hit you hard in the face. You start laughing and then I hit you hard in the face. Would I skate on the assault charge on the defense of I told him I was gonna hit him in the face but he didn't put up his guard! He should have been a better boxer, especially since I told him my strategy in advance ? I think not.

To me, it's absolutely ludicrous that we expect otherwise in the case of E.U.L.A.s.

Tags: law, technology
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 2 comments