Blizzard bans more SC2 hackers

[Exort]

It's probably because of the idea, that if someone is using external programs for single player, they're one step away from using them for multiplayer. Despite this, as people before me have stated, it IS against the EULA.

Besides, if I'm correct about this, they can still player Single player while they're banned, right?

Yes, but I think only offline mode single player. Last time people only got banned for a week. I'm not sure about this time.

 

[Irridium]

Sorry can you elaborate on offline account?

Currently you have three Offline Account named: Guest1, Guest2, Guest3, which is completely offline, since it is completely offline I don't see how Blizzard can moniter any activity at all, therefore no way of banning you.

I think you might be confused between Online Single player and Offline Single Player.
If you hack in Online Single Player you can get banned, but not Offline Single player, again because Blizzard can't moniter what you are doing.

By the way, Blizzard don't really ban people for using custom Skin or Sound file, in WoW it had been done for years, and I yet to hear a case of people getting banned for it. For example the GreenFire Mod for Warlock.

Here's what I'm saying: Banning people from playing the game for hacking the single player online is stupid. But people hacking for achievements/pictures is also stupid, if not more-so. Just hack away offline.

I don't know what guest(offline) accounts can and can't do, I was just going off on a tangent and thinking out-loud with all that...

As for skin/sound files, I don't really have an opinion on those. So yeah...

Hopefully that clarified some things.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Surely you buy the game, then pirate another copy, and do your offline single player cheaty nonsense on that, keeping your paid for copy pristine and clean

After all, you've bought it, you're just using a backup copy to protect your original...that's allowed legally, isn't it?

If so, glad to help. If not then of course I don't condone such irresponsible and illegal actions.

EULAs need to die however, once you've taken the plastic off, no store in the world is going to take that game back and refund you, whatever your customer rights are, and you can't read the EULA until you've unwrapped the game and half installed it.

Or, we force them all to print their EULAs in large print with every piece of software. See how much they can trim those buggers down when they realise it's cutting a couple of bucks per sale from the profits.

Personally I think it's a shame that this one isn't legally binding: 'In accepting this agreement, you agree to 1 - not be a dick, that is all. Should you be found to be being a dick, we reserve the right to drive a pickaxe thru your PC/console and game. and in extreme cases, a limb of our choice.'

 

[Ken Sapp]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

You mean the terms of use which you don't see until you have already purchased the game at the store, taken it home, removed the shrinkwrap(thus being unable to return the software in most stores) and begun installing?

This issue has already come up in court before and been shot down as non-binding since the terms of use are not readily available to be agreed to before the purchase takes place.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

You mean the terms of use which you don't see until you have already purchased the game at the store, taken it home, removed the shrinkwrap(thus being unable to return the software in most stores) and begun installing?

This issue has already come up in court before and been shot down as non-binding since the terms of use are not readily available to be agreed to before the purchase takes place.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.248158.9143478

AS you can see in my later post. There is an explanation and a link to the EULA on the box.

 

[Irridium]

It says, on the box of the game that you'll need to agree to some form EULA and it even gives a url to said EULA. People can check this before they buy it.

Yeah, because I'm totally going to check the EULA online while at the store. And saying I have to agree to "some form" of it before buying without divulging exactly what I'm agreeing to before buying is complete crap.

EULAs are not contracts people need to stop pretending they are. Copyright laws are pretty clear in countries and all countries that are a part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (almost all of them) share copyrights across boards and have the same basic protections.

First Sale Doctrine (using the US example but mostly the same everywhere) means you own a copy of whatever material you bought. Inherent is the rights to sale the copy, and use the copy how you please. Think of a book. This is the traditional way to view copyrighted materials sold on some type of media, and the one I believe they should force companies to abide by.

Software companies try to get around this by saying they are selling you a license to use their product, not a copy of the software. The EULAs are to that effect. However courts have held up in some situations where if the EULA was not fully disclosed to the customer prior to the sell (remember not agreeing means you can't use it, and since you have to start to install it to see it you can no longer return the opened copy of the software) that the EULA is void that First Sale Doctrine applies.

EULAs get a way with it mostly because nobody challenges them. At least in the US they have a track record of losing on many of the more restrictive clauses.

Just because they put it in writing does not mean it's legal.

 

[bob1052]

In this day and age this does not apply to many people. Also if these people were not connected to the battle.net, Blizzard would not have been able to ban them, no one impacted by this does not fall under the slow/no internet group.

Well, according to this piece [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10454133-94.html], it appears that roughly 40% of people in the US don't have broadband(high speed) internet.

That is less then people with broadband, but its still a shit-load of people. And to just ignore all of them is just stupid.

That survey leads me to a lot more questions.

In America (in October 09) the amount of people with any kind of internet is just over 5% greater than without broadband. 40% don't have high speed, but only about 1/8 of those without high speed actually have internet. Also a clear trend would imply that in the past year that number has decreased. Furthermore it does not relate its findings to people who play games. Gamers often like to optimize as much as they can afford, ranging from pcs to ideal connections.

However, when I think about it, Starcraft 2 also sold very well in places outside of USA and in many of those they won't have access to broadband.

Just because they put it in writing does not mean it's legal.

If you think only things that are fully legally binding should be enforced than you need to recognize your rights to games and the servers they are on.

Blizzard has the right to deny anyone access to their servers. The EULA puts ground rules down and makes it more fair for the customer.

 

[Exort]

Here's what I'm saying: Banning people from playing the game for hacking the single player online is stupid.

People are saying that those hacker are testing the trainer in single player (Versus AI) mode. It is basicly like a mutliplayer match expect the other player is controlled by the computer. That is why people uses it as a test.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

but the terms of use are silly.
thats like saying people in a dictatorship are brining the law uppon themselves.

And saying that is like saying people paid $60 bucks to be in this dictatorship. Whats wrong with using their cheats? I know trainers can be fun but still...

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It says, on the box of the game that you'll need to agree to some form EULA and it even gives a url to said EULA. People can check this before they buy it.

Yeah, because I'm totally going to check the EULA online while at the store. And saying I have to agree to "some form" of it before buying without divulging exactly what I'm agreeing to before buying is complete crap.

EULAs are not contracts people need to stop pretending they are. Copyright laws are pretty clear in countries and all countries that are a part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (almost all of them) share copyrights across boards and have the same basic protections.

First Sale Doctrine (using the US example but mostly the same everywhere) means you own a copy of whatever material you bought. Inherent is the rights to sale the copy, and use the copy how you please. Think of a book. This is the traditional way to view copyrighted materials sold on some type of media, and the one I believe they should force companies to abide by.

Software companies try to get around this by saying they are selling you a license to use their product, not a copy of the software. The EULAs are to that effect. However courts have held up in some situations where if the EULA was not fully disclosed to the customer prior to the sell (remember not agreeing means you can't use it, and since you have to start to install it to see it you can no longer return the opened copy of the software) that the EULA is void that First Sale Doctrine applies.

EULAs get a way with it mostly because nobody challenges them. At least in the US they have a track record of losing on many of the more restrictive clauses.

Just because they put it in writing does not mean it's legal.

It is fully disclosed to them before the sale, all they need to do is read it on the website.

 

[Irridium]

Here's what I'm saying: Banning people from playing the game for hacking the single player online is stupid.

People are saying that those hacker are testing the trainer in single player (Versus AI) mode. It is basicly like a mutliplayer match expect the other player is controlled by the computer. That is why people uses it as a test.

Well then why didn't they just do it offline?

That survey leads me to a lot more questions.

In America (in October 09) the amount of people with any kind of internet is just over 5% greater than without broadband. 40% don't have high speed, but only about 1/8 of those without high speed actually have internet. Also a clear trend would imply that in the past year that number has decreased. Furthermore it does not relate its findings to people who play games. Gamers often like to optimize as much as they can afford, ranging from pcs to ideal connections.

However, when I think about it, Starcraft 2 also sold very well in places outside of USA and in many of those they won't have access to broadband.

That trend would have decreased. However I doubt it would be by much.

And even if it doesn't differentiate how many are gamers, I wouldn't doubt that a fair amount are.

Gamers do like to optimize things. However sometimes people can't really control where they live and end up living in a place with crap internet. Moving is expensive. Really expensive, and not really worth it for a faster connection. Which means they must either give up playing most games, or buy games and deal with the bullshit. Which is not a choice they should be making.

 

[Irridium]

It is fully disclosed to them before the sale, all they need to do is read it on the website.

No, its not fully disclosed. You wouldn't know the URL until your at the store, looking at the box. Most wouldn't know where to search beforehand, or even know what the site is, or care really. And besides, a system like that is totally asinine.

Why should I read up on the legalities of buying a damn game? Why can't I just buy it and use it how I damn well please?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It is fully disclosed to them before the sale, all they need to do is read it on the website.

No, its not fully disclosed. You wouldn't know the URL until your at the store, looking at the box. Most wouldn't know where to search beforehand, or even know what the site is, or care really. And besides, a system like that is totally asinine.

Why should I read up on the legalities of buying a damn game? Why can't I just buy it and use it how I damn well please?

You know what, I couldn't be bothered to do this. Let's just agree to disagree. I'm gonna go play some Riddick.

Ok everyone? No more quotes please!

 

[Irridium]

It is fully disclosed to them before the sale, all they need to do is read it on the website.

No, its not fully disclosed. You wouldn't know the URL until your at the store, looking at the box. Most wouldn't know where to search beforehand, or even know what the site is, or care really. And besides, a system like that is totally asinine.

Why should I read up on the legalities of buying a damn game? Why can't I just buy it and use it how I damn well please?

You know what, I couldn't be bothered to do this. Let's just agree to disagree. I'm gonna go play some Riddick.

Ok everyone? No more quotes please!

Sounds good. I'm gonna go play Minecraft. Or maybe Mount and Blade. Either way, enjoy your Riddick.

 

[bob1052]

I can't believe that all the people cheering Blizzard on don't realize that eventually, it will be their toes Blizzard (or some other company that copied Blizzard) steps on.

Look folks, this idea that software that you pay full price for doesn't belong to you and must be used ONLY as specified by Blizzard is BS. Where do you think this will lead? It won't lead to consumer benefits.

The game industry is now on the other side, the side where they are exclusive instead of inclusive.

Blizzard games are probably the worst example to use for that argument.

In WoW players have access to full Lua editing of the UI.

In Starcraft 2 players have cheats they can use as much as they want. Furthermore there is an incredibly high quality map builder (that can also make custom game settings) which gives you full control. People complain that the in-game cheats don't give you enough freedom (I remember someone mentioning marines shooting nukes) but the map editor gives "consumer benefits" to create whatever they want.

For reference, the Blizzard Dota they are releasing would be very possible to be recreated (and probably has been) in some form using the map editor.

 

[d3structor]

Using modifications/hacks for SP shouldn't be treated that harsly if you ask me. That's plain nuts. If these programs ALSO offered MP hacks, ban those idiots but if not, leave them the fuck alone.

Blizzards side of the argument is that many of the trainers can work in multiplayer, however they are banning people who have never even played online in order to keep the integrity of the achievement system

How did they ban people that never go online?
It is impossible...

To clarify, The game is pretty much always connected to the internet whether or not you actually play on the multiplayer servers. As such, they can tell what you are doing in single player as well as when you are playing multiplayer.

Probably should have gone into a little more detail about that, my bad.

 

[Masterpsyker]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

I'll make you a deal.

Go buy a fresh copy of a game, it doesn't matter what game it is, go buy a copy...

... Open it, go on, break that plastic. You like that smell of freshly opened software product complete with some advertisements for hardware don't ya? Smells good right?

Good. Now put the DVD in your tray. Load it up.

Done? Awesome. Now you just have to install the game... oh, hold on, "To play this game you must abide by the following user agreement."

Read the agreement and install the game. Don't play it. Just install it. Now try and get your money back. You can't do it.

Let me take it back to the store and illustrate:

***

"Hi, I recently purchased this game and would like to return it." I say to the nerdy girl behind the counter.

"I'm sorry sir but your box has been opened and the seal broken." Her eyes are full of sympathy, she knows my pain. "I can't give you a refund on this game."

I am confused. I have not yet used the product and I can't return it? I decide to inquire further. "Why not? You sell used games here all the time... just re-wrap it and you're good to go."

Videogame-Counter-Girl sighs and tells me that, unlike console games, a PC game can be copied easily. All I needed was the CD key and since I've had a chance to use it, the game can't be returned. It has been, "Licensed to me for individual use."

I explain that I did not accept the EULA or the ToS. I never installed the game. She suggests calling customer service of the publisher.

***

Quoted from Publicknowledge's Matt Kuhn (26 July, 2010):

"As Blizzard would have it, in a case currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, when you pay cash for a copy of one of their games from a local retailer, you haven?t actually bought it. You don?t own that copy; it remains Blizzard?s property and it?s only with their explicit permission that you can install or play the game."

***

Quoted from Starcraft II's EULA:

"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. IF YOU REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER YOUR PURCHASE, YOU MAY CALL (800)757-7707 TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE."

***

Me: "Hello, I'm calling to request a refund of my purchase for Starcraft 2 due to a disagreement in the End User License Agreement. I have my purchase receipt and it is dated exactly twelve days ago."

Blizzard: "What part of the agreement do you disagree with?"

M: "Section 2.E F and G which limit my ability to create protocols of communication for local area network gameplay. My friends and I are computer science students at Lehigh University and can't get the IT staff to use port triggering for battle.net. This is causing us to be unable to play with each other over the Service and upon researching our rights to alter the game learned that we would face copyright infringement penalties for trying to play with one another."

B: "Well I'm sorry for your trouble. Have you talked with technical support about the issue?"

M: "Yes, we tried all of their suggestions but nothing works because of the campus intranet structure."

B: "That is unfortunate. You have, however, installed the game and in doing so agreed to the EULA. We will not be able to provide you with a refund of your purchase. Can I help you with anything else?"

***

The argument that software (read: a product) is not ours to own after paying for it but is instead a "licensed product to be used only in manners directed by the publisher" is ludicrous. When you pay for a piece of art do you merely obtain a license to hang or display the art? What if I want to use my art in a more creative fashion? I want to buy art to burn it... but that's not part of the license I payed money for.

I have said it time and time again: "The EULA is not enforceable in a court of law." I will continue to say it REPEATEDLY AND UNTIL THE END OF TIME because it is the "truth." In no system of personal property do you purchase a product and limit yourself only to its intended use (with the notable exception of cleaning products in the case of public safety). I have personally used objects in ways that their creators had probably never intended and I was able to do this because I purchased a product and had free use over all and any functions of said product.

If a guy wants to modify the sound files in SC2 to play Murloc sounds, I say let him. If he wants to modify the in-game portraits to porn, fine. He bought the software and as far as I am concerned he can do whatever he wants with it.

The argument of hacking multiplayer as a reason to deny the modification of files is weak. If you want to have a secure and hack free multiplayer experience, make the game hash-check files which are relevant to gameplay like constants and mapdata when the game loads. Sure it might take a little while longer, but I'd rather have a moderately longer loading time per game than have my personal freedom and property rights shit on by a corporation.

 

[bob1052]

snippity

The EULA is not hidden. It is made aware to you on the outside of the box.

 

[d3structor]

Blizzard games are probably the worst example to use for that argument.

In WoW players have access to full Lua editing of the UI.

In Starcraft 2 players have cheats they can use as much as they want. Furthermore there is an incredibly high quality map builder (that can also make custom game settings) which gives you full control. People complain that the in-game cheats don't give you enough freedom (I remember someone mentioning marines shooting nukes) but the map editor gives "consumer benefits" to create whatever they want.

For reference, the Blizzard Dota they are releasing would be very possible to be recreated (and probably has been) in some form using the map editor.

I love the map editor but some of us want a little more than single maps with tweaks. Why shouldn't i be able to alter little files like zergling sound effect so i can enjoy the changes throughout the entire game, from custom matches against the a.i. to the campaign missions to the multiplayer.

Its not like i would be able to hear them through fog of war or anything like that, but since it is against the terms of use I cant do anything like that except on the single map I create it on or else I face a permanent ban when I get caught.

If he wants to modify the in-game portraits to porn, fine.

*cough* why i dont know what you are talking about, i have never even thought about that.
[small]looks around to see if anyone believed him[/small]