Quote:
Originally Posted by Loviatar
the games at the used counter are not secure account server games.
go back to law school because i have had business law and that non transferable clause repeated here and there covers what you want to do very nicely.
|
Yeah, but they also have CD keys that function in the exact manner: to provide the consumer with a license to use the software, a license that can be assigned to someone else upon being sold. Under this policy, I, as a consumer, am completely screwed should I ever want to sell MY game/license, which I am COMPLETELY entitled to do (if you don't think so, then it's YOU who need to go back to law school). But then, it sounds like you just might support the RIAA's push to prevent users from ripping CDs (something clearly covered under fair use). In any event, I'm not discussing business law, I'm discussing contract law and IP. Furthermore, I'm not disputing the fact that a non-transferable clause exists. Nor am I disputing it's function. If you've had business law (quite a bit different than
practicing), then you know that simply because you can throw a clause somewhere oesn't make it right or legally justifiable (franchise agreements come to mind). Add in the fact that no-one reads shrink-wrap agreements and you have yourself a perfect hook.
Btw, you might want to read that clause before you criticize my knowledge. It provides that the key is non-transferable (which I trust you know is different than something being
assignable) AND can only be used by one person, which is consistent with unlinking keys. You might also want to read the restrictions, which don't explicitly prohibit you from selling (and I'm sorry, the catch-all doesn't work here because they could've easily added sell in place of rent/lease, both of which are temporary transfers for money, meaning you'd be profiting off ANet's IP). There's also the little nuance that selling isn't quite the same as transferring (as transferring implies that you're merely giving something you own, and still have a license for, to someone else). But you know what really kills the non-transferable clause's power with respect to the keys? It's the simple fact that you couldn't transfer the key by itself even if you wanted to. The clause is completely moot as to keys. You can only transfer the account, and as I've stated, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm simply asking why not allow either us to unlink our keys OR allow ANet to do it for us at our request or if we have two copies (CE/SE)?
Again, there is no valid legal reason why such a policy exists and YOU certainly can't articulate one, either in business law or in IP. ANet can't argue that they're losing money because the license was already paid for. You can't make the argument that the seller is profiting off ANet's IP by selling their copy because the amount of money spent on the license hasn't changed (i.e. A paid $50 for it and B bought it from A for $30. While B technically has the same license for $30, A is still down $20 and guess who still made $50 btw the two of them: ANet). They also can't argue that their copyrights are being infringed because the person selling their game
no longer has a license to play with and thus has no access to copyrighted material. If ANet sanctioned the unlinking of keys there would be NO violation of the EULA because one person would still have the rights and limitations provided. There would be no sharing of the account, which is prohbited by the EULA and no accounts would've been transferred in the process. Bottom-line: there is NO valid legal reason for this policy at all and YOU know it.
There are those out there who support this (I've seen their posts) and there are those who don't. In either case, I've said my piece. And nah, I think it's you who needs to go back to law school. Done and done.