Blizzard hands major private WOW servers DMCA.

[purplerat]

this in computer EULA of is rights me you! unders no yes why? Software BBA to you work so.

 

[elbert]

this in computer EULA of is rights me you! unders no yes why? Software BBA to you work so.

Hardware rights yes but you no. BBA to me yes but from you no. The EULA is only good if it doesn't violate rights of the customer. The customer has the rights of use for software he or she has payed for.

"You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as transfer of the HARDWARE.

What is being transfered is the proceeding noun rights. Where is it being transfered? To the hardware. Transfer here meaning change. Change of the hardware.

Transfer
Verb
[-ferring, -ferred]
1. to change or move from one thing.

Now Im not saying your wrong as you can give the system away with the OS. The wording however is weak and allows change of one thing under the definition of transfer.

 

[BuckeyeInNC]

Wow Purplerat, my hat is off to you and I admire your determination.

However, I think you are wasting your time here.

Elbert clearly cannot understand copyright and licensing (let alone the English language) AND he blames any attempt by a company to protect those rights as being solely attributable to greed . . .

Logic will not work on Elbert.

 

[elbert]

Wow Purplerat, my hat is off to you and I admire your determination.

However, I think you are wasting your time here.

Elbert clearly cannot understand copyright and licensing (let alone the English language) AND he blames any attempt by a company to protect those rights as being solely attributable to greed . . .

Logic will not work on Elbert.

Agreed as logic of transfer not being change. Under 98SE EULA transfer not meaning change would be breaking it even with an upgrade. Is this purplerat? Second time a stranger has come in siding with purplerat. Can you upgrade with windows 98SE OEM? Yes. Fact is you can upgrade every piece of hardware under windows 98SE OEM this includes the OEM's motherboard. XP OEM you can not upgrade the motherboard and get it authorized. Unless as I pointed out your cry to the customer rep.

 

[dtq]

Agreed as logic of transfer not being change. Under 98SE EULA you break it even with an upgrade. Is this purplerat? Second time a stranger has come in siding with purplerat. Can you upgrade with windows 98SE OEM? Yes. Fact is you can upgrade every piece of hardware under windows 98SE OEM this includes the OEM's motherboard. XP OEM you can not upgrade the motherboard even if its the OEM's motherboard and get it authorized. Unless as I pointed out your cry to the customer rep.

Ive not had a problem getting xp oem reauthorised after system rebuilds \ major upgrades.

 

[elbert]

Ive not had a problem getting xp oem reauthorised after system rebuilds \ major upgrades.

Did that include motherboard upgrade? I mean sure I have even changed the motherboard and gotten it activated but had to contact a MS rep.

 

[dtq]

Complete system upgrade when an old system dies, and parts are obsolete for example a agp socket 754 mother board with 20 pin atx power supply (common configuration for systems at my company), if a processor or MB dies its pretty much scrap the system and start again, which I have done with many older systems, just kept the case.

Never had any issues at all from microsoft. I object to having to call them up for a reauthorisaion but theyve never given me hassle over it. As an IT manager for a company its not uncommon that I have to make the call (hence I object to the time it takes to make the call and hurdles to jump over).

I have had many complete rebuilds with new motherboard, processor, graphics card, ram, powersupply, drives etc etc at once, no hassle at all.

 

[dtq]

I think the having to talk to a rep thing is time sensitive depending on how long aago it was last activated. on a license where a machines been trouble free for 3 years I never have a problem with plain online activation. If is a systems given a problem in the last year I may have to use the phone menu system.

Ive had to speak to a rep on a couple of occaisions when rapidly reinstalling and testing different components when trouble shooting a system etc, The rep probably gets a very fed up customer on the phone then, Im already having a bad day if thats happening, last thing I want is moronic questions. Did this software come with a system or did you buy it seperately, is it installed on more than one machine, a bit like the bit on many forms is this going to be used for terrorist purposes... and the last person to answer yes to that was? a comedian... Never been any begging or explaining though and often the rep sounds as fed up of asking the same questions and getting the same answers as I am

 

[purplerat]

Did that include motherboard upgrade? I mean sure I have even changed the motherboard and gotten it activated but had to contact a MS rep.

elbert, You've claimed so whole heartily to have great knowledge of these things, but you obviously do not.

First off you are mixing up technical specifications and license agreement specifications. No body is arguing that there was a change in the Tech Spec requiring online activation in XP which wasn't required in 98. THIS change was made to reflect a constant specification in both the 98 and XP EULA.

Secondly ALL versions of XP require activation upon installation. Whether or not you can activate online and not have to call is time based not system based. You can only activate a copy once in an allotted amount of time (something like 90 days or 6 months).

Some OEMs (the manufactures not the OS) put restrictions onto THEIR OEM software. It's not Microsoft's software which prevents you from reusing that copy on another machine, it's the manufacturer's. For example HP OEM CDs will verify your motherboard before allowing you to install from them. Currently it has to be an exact model for the disc to work, it used to just have to be an HP. Dell will install even on a non-Dell system, but it will only activate on a Dell. The activation is done during the install so the OS is basically installed pre-activated and never requires online activation. The caveat is the at the VLA serial they use is often not able to be activated through the normal online activation. Gateway OEMs on the other hand just work like a standard OEM CD (the type you would buy online separate from a new PC) and can be installed and reinstalled on different machines the same as a retail version. (edit- Just to be clear these specifications change often and even amongst different product lines so don't blast me if I'm not exactly correct on the various differences, the point is that is differences).

These differences are manufacturer based, not Microsoft but they all are under the same EULA terms set forth by Microsoft. The license restrictions on a HP OEM CD is no different than on a Gateway even though they have technical differences. That's WHY the EULA is important - just because you CAN do something that does not mean you have the right to.

 

[elbert]

elbert, You've claimed so whole heartily to have great knowledge of these things, but you obviously do not.

First off you are mixing up technical specifications and license agreement specifications. No body is arguing that there was a change in the Tech Spec requiring online activation in XP which wasn't required in 98. THIS change was made to reflect a constant specification in both the 98 and XP EULA.

Secondly ALL versions of XP require activation upon installation. Whether or not you can activate online and not have to call is time based not system based. You can only activate a copy once in an allotted amount of time (something like 90 days or 6 months).

Some OEMs (the manufactures not the OS) put restrictions onto THEIR OEM software. It's not Microsoft's software which prevents you from reusing that copy on another machine, it's the manufacturer's. For example HP OEM CDs will verify your motherboard before allowing you to install from them. Currently it has to be an exact model for the disc to work, it used to just have to be an HP. Dell will install even on a non-Dell system, but it will only activate on a Dell. The activation is done during the install so the OS is basically installed pre-activated and never requires online activation. The caveat is the at the VLA serial they use is often not able to be activated through the normal online activation. Gateway OEMs on the other hand just work like a standard OEM CD (the type you would buy online separate from a new PC) and can be installed and reinstalled on different machines the same as a retail version. (edit- Just to be clear these specifications change often and even amongst different product lines so don't blast me if I'm not exactly correct on the various differences, the point is that is differences).

These differences are manufacturer based, not Microsoft but they all are under the same EULA terms set forth by Microsoft. The license restrictions on a HP OEM CD is no different than on a Gateway even though they have technical differences. That's WHY the EULA is important - just because you CAN do something that does not mean you have the right to.

The technical change was the agreement. You introduced the license as it had anything to do with what I stated. I played alone because you seem to really like to talk. I just stated you could and you post all EULA's. Twisting master i guess. Even OEM versions is MS's code.

No body is arguing that there was a change in the Tech Spec requiring online activation in XP which wasn't required in 98.

This was the point to the first post I made on OEM. You said it wasn't so. You even went on to say you can install vista and I corrected you that isnt with activation.

@dtq Im not saying your wrong as this was the point I made to purplerat.

 

[purplerat]

Your original argument going back to WoW was that companies like Blizzard and Microsoft had made changes to their licensing agreements so that they could go after people. Neither changed their licensing agreements in the ways you claimed.
You even made the claim that pre-WotLK WoW it was allowable as per the EULA to use emulation. That is false.

 

[elbert]

Your original argument going back to WoW was that companies like Blizzard and Microsoft had made changes to their licensing agreements so that they could go after people. Neither changed their licensing agreements in the ways you claimed.
You even made the claim that pre-WotLK WoW it was allowable as per the EULA to use emulation. That is false.

My original argument was this.

Did those first buying windows XP OEM know they can only install it on one PC?

In other words could it be done. You bring in the EULA. Someone with an English back ground, as you are claiming, should see this as physically possible. IE you could with no problem from the software. XP here gives you a problem when the motherboard is changed. With this one can state even with out the EULA that some were mislead. MS never stop this practice on windows 98 or couldnt. All I know for sure is at the time my instructors said it was legal. Why isn't in my BBA as I only learned tort laws and court room proceeding's.

Now if you didn't understand me im big into forgiving misunderstandings.

 

[purplerat]

My original argument was this.

Did those first buying windows XP OEM know they can only install it on one PC?

In other was could it be done. You bring in the EULA. Someone with an English back ground as you are claim should see this as physically possible. IE you could with no problem from the software. XP here gives you problem when the motherboard is changed. With this one can state even with out the EULA that some were mislead.

From a purely technical standpoint you still can. It's entirely possible to install XP, Vista and every other version of Windows on as many PCs as you want even simultaneously. There are some restrictions on activations (different from installations) but even those are easily gotten from Microsoft, even if you have to call to get one. The truth is that Microsoft has been VERY liberal with what they allow people to do as compared to what the EULA says. Same goes for Blizzard. Maybe the problem you have with these companies is that they have been too nice to you and you just expect to get a lot more than what you are really entitled to.

 

[purplerat]

You bring in the EULA.

Actually you were the one who brought up EULAs. I didn't even mention them until you posted this lie:

Now if I purchased WOTLK with its new EULA I would be ethnically in the wrong. Thus Im not buying that either. Hence Ill be playing 2.4.3 BC.

I still waiting for you to explain what was so new in the WotLK EULA that changed your view of what was ethical versus 2.4.3 BC. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that the whole point of your post? That Blizzard had suddenly changed the rules and was screwing people over.

 

[elbert]

From a purely technical standpoint you still can. It's entirely possible to install XP, Vista and every other version of Windows on as many PCs as you want even simultaneously. There are some restrictions on activations (different from installations) but even those are easily gotten from Microsoft, even if you have to call to get one. The truth is that Microsoft has been VERY liberal with what they allow people to do as compared to what the EULA says. Same goes for Blizzard. Maybe the problem you have with these companies is that they have been too nice to you and you just expect to get a lot more than what you are really entitled to.

You could just say you didn't understand. Don't try making it personal again by calling me cheap. Thats something a troll would do when showed to be incorrect.

Now I agree with every thing i bolded. I didn't agree with the next sentence because I started out in the day of DOS. The time when you only needed one license for ever PC you used. Microsoft was very liberal in the 80's, reasonable in the 90's with windows 3.x/95/98, and down right greedy in 2000 with ME/2000/xp.

Now dropping all the personal crap. My point is and has alway been if blizzard wasnt so greedy they wouldnt have this problem of emulation servers. Note guildwars with no monthly fee and no servers emulating them. Note Runescape with no monthly fee unless you want to pay with no emulation servers. Granted WOW has a bit more content than guildwars but Runescape has more.

 

[purplerat]

Note guildwars with no monthly fee and no servers emulating them. Note Runescape with no monthly fee unless you want to pay with no emulation servers. Granted WOW has a bit more content than guildwars but Runescape has more.

Are you really 100% sure there are no private servers for those games? WoW dominates both of those games over and over again so it's only reasonable to expect there to be many more private WoW servers than Guild Wars or Runescape.

 

[elbert]

You bring in the EULA.

Actually you were the one who brought up EULAs. I didn't even mention them until you posted this lie:

Now if I purchased WOTLK with its new EULA I would be ethically in the wrong. Thus Im not buying that either. Hence Ill be playing 2.4.3 BC.

Cant be wrong here its what I think is correct. IE Opinion. This is also the reason I will not be playing starcraft2 or diablo3. I stated that also back on page one.

I still waiting for you to explain what was so new in the WotLK EULA that changed your view of what was ethical versus 2.4.3 BC. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that the whole point of your post? That Blizzard had suddenly changed the rules and was screwing people over.

Keep waiting because I give up explaining things to you about EULA. I will state that ethically I would be in the wrong playing it if I fell they are ripping me off.

 

[purplerat]

Now I agree with every thing i bolded. I didn't agree with the next sentence because I started out in the day of DOS. The time when you only needed one license for ever PC you used. Microsoft was very liberal in the 80's, reasonable in the 90's with windows 3.x/95/98, and down right greedy in 2000 with ME/2000/xp.

The reason for Microsoft's change in attitude was people strating to take advantage of their generosity in licensing. In 80s and early 90s how many people had access to multiple PCs? How often were people buying new PCs? Not too many and not too often, at least relative to the past 10 years.

But once people started buying multiple PCs and more often Microsoft had to do something to protect their product. I remember when 95 came the same upgrade CD was passed around probably 20 people I knew with computers because it could be done. When 98SE came out I was working as PC tech in a small store and the owner made it standard practice to setup all new PCs with the same copy of 98 and the same serial key. 1 copy of Windows was used for literally hundreds of computers coming out of that one store just because it could be done. Maybe people got pissed when Microsoft put an end to this, but that doesn't make MS unethical.

 

[purplerat]

Cant be wrong here its what I think is correct.

Sorry buddy, I don't care where you come from or what language you speak facts don't change just be cause you'd like them to. The FACT is that there was no change between WotLK EULA and previous WoW EULA regarding the issue at hand.

 

[elbert]

Note guildwars with no monthly fee and no servers emulating them. Note Runescape with no monthly fee unless you want to pay with no emulation servers. Granted WOW has a bit more content than guildwars but Runescape has more.

Are you really 100% sure there are no private servers for those games? WoW dominates both of those games over and over again so it's only reasonable to expect there to be many more private WoW servers than Guild Wars or Runescape.

99.9% sure. Maybe a very good programmer may have his or her own but who else would play on it with all bugs. Now you most likely right about wow private servers even with a reduced price. To cut price isn't to stop it completely but to starve the private servers of what they need. Players are nearly as huge a mass on private servers as retail. The point should be to win these players over to retail.

All blizzard did with this action is cause the servers to move and change leaders.

 

[elbert]

Cant be wrong here its what I think is correct.

Sorry buddy, I don't care where you come from or what language you speak facts don't change just be cause you'd like them to. The FACT is that there was no change between WotLK EULA and previous WoW EULA regarding the issue at hand.

True but opinions cant be proven wrong no matter how hard you try. Ask any English teacher if an opinion can be wrong.

 

[purplerat]

99.9% sure. Maybe a very good programmer may have his or her own but who else would play on it with all bugs.

Google is your friend, especially when you speak of facts.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...rver&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=guild+wars+pr

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=runescape+private+server&btnG=Search

There seems to be no shortage of Runescape or Guild Wars private servers. Seems like they may even be proportionally more common than WoW servers.

There's an old saying that I think applies very well to the claims you've made:
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

 

[purplerat]

True but opinions cant be proven wrong no matter how hard you try. Ask any English teacher if an opinion can be wrong.

The problem is that it's not a matter of opinion. Simply having an opinion on something does not make your opinion valid. It has to be an opinion on a matter of opinion. For example an opinion that gravity does not exist is clearly a false opinion because gravity is not a matter of opinion.

And an English teacher would not be the correct person to ask as to whether an opinion can be proven false. That's more along the lines of philosophy or possibly science, not language.

 

[elbert]

Now I agree with every thing i bolded. I didn't agree with the next sentence because I started out in the day of DOS. The time when you only needed one license for ever PC you used. Microsoft was very liberal in the 80's, reasonable in the 90's with windows 3.x/95/98, and down right greedy in 2000 with ME/2000/xp.

The reason for Microsoft's change in attitude was people strating to take advantage of their generosity in licensing. In 80s and early 90s how many people had access to multiple PCs? How often were people buying new PCs? Not too many and not too often, at least relative to the past 10 years.

But once people started buying multiple PCs and more often Microsoft had to do something to protect their product. I remember when 95 came the same upgrade CD was passed around probably 20 people I knew with computers because it could be done. When 98SE came out I was working as PC tech in a small store and the owner made it standard practice to setup all new PCs with the same copy of 98 and the same serial key. 1 copy of Windows was used for literally hundreds of computers coming out of that one store just because it could be done. Maybe people got pissed when Microsoft put an end to this, but that doesn't make MS unethical.

profits not generosity. Less computers back then would mean a higher price else wise.

When 98SE came out I was working as PC tech in a small store and the owner made it standard practice to setup all new PCs with the same copy of 98 and the same serial key. 1 copy of Windows was used for literally hundreds of computers

OMG you did this and had the nerve to say I steal. Just kidding!!! Protecting there product is fine. I have no problem with that but price has went form $40 for DOS to upwards of $300 for XP all while sales have increased. I have no problem with blizzard protecting there product but I think they are going the wrong way to cause change.

 

[purplerat]

Protecting there product is fine. I have no problem with that but price has went form $40 for DOS to upwards of $300 for XP all while sales have increased. I have no problem with blizzard protecting there product but I think they are going the wrong way to cause change.

First of all it's called inflation. Prices go up especially as demand goes up. Also $300 for Windows is retail, not OEM. Part of the reason why OEM is so much cheaper is because of greater restrictions. Retail XPs EULA makes it perfectly acceptable to uninstall it from one PC and even resell the software alone to another person or just transfer it to another PC.