4 ms·

I'd like to live in a world where companies are free to offer the products they choose to offer under the terms they choose to offer them under. Companies have

I'd like to live in a world where companies are free to offer the products they choose to offer under the terms they choose to offer them under. Companies have always been able to offer products under arbitrarily complicated terms of their choosing. But any supposed benefits from having the government enforce compliance with these terms should be weighed against the consequent loss of individual privacy & liberty.

bdr 16y ago
Why can't you do that weighing as an individual?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- bumbledraven 16y ago
  Because all the citizens of a country live under one government, the rules of which supposedly apply to everyone.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I don't understand this response at all. Contract covenants aren't laws; they're agreements freely entered into between parties: "you promise not to do X and to pay me Y, and I'll let you play my game Z".
    - bumbledraven 16y ago
      For people who entered into a contact with Blizzard in order to use their system, sure. I'm talking about a 3rd party who obtains their client through an anonymous third party and reverse-engineers it.
tptacek 16y ago
The government isn't enforcing compliance in this case; it's enforcing contracts. The matter at hand isn't criminal.
- bumbledraven 16y ago
  OK, I see what you mean. But in that case, what terms could Blizzard put in their contract their to effectively prohibit Glider bots? - "You agree to let us sue you for $1 million if we catch you using a bot." A court probably wouldn't uphold such a contract. - "You agree not to reverse engineer our software (to figure out ways to circumvent our bot detection mechanisms)." The bot's author could have received Blizzard's software through a third party and so wouldn't be bound by the contract.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Blizzard already put terms in their contract prohibiting bots. They can't make up arbitrary damages, but they don't have to; both contract law and torts come into play when you violate a license contract and cause damages in the process. And no, you haven't discovered a great way for absolutely anybody to evade any contract by laundering software through an anonymous third party.
    - bumbledraven 16y ago
      Do those terms attempt to prohibit the development of bots, or just their use? If it's the former, why would we want the government to force someone who never entered into a contract with Blizzard to comply with the terms of that contract? By the way, I never said this was my "discovery"; I think it's a legitimate question about the extent to which we should be free to tinker with things.

bdr 16y ago

Why can't you do that weighing as an individual?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bumbledraven 16y ago
Because all the citizens of a country live under one government, the rules of which supposedly apply to everyone.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I don't understand this response at all. Contract covenants aren't laws; they're agreements freely entered into between parties: "you promise not to do X and to pay me Y, and I'll let you play my game Z".
  - bumbledraven 16y ago
    For people who entered into a contact with Blizzard in order to use their system, sure. I'm talking about a 3rd party who obtains their client through an anonymous third party and reverse-engineers it.

tptacek 16y ago

The government isn't enforcing compliance in this case; it's enforcing contracts. The matter at hand isn't criminal.

bumbledraven 16y ago
OK, I see what you mean. But in that case, what terms could Blizzard put in their contract their to effectively prohibit Glider bots? - "You agree to let us sue you for $1 million if we catch you using a bot." A court probably wouldn't uphold such a contract. - "You agree not to reverse engineer our software (to figure out ways to circumvent our bot detection mechanisms)." The bot's author could have received Blizzard's software through a third party and so wouldn't be bound by the contract.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Blizzard already put terms in their contract prohibiting bots. They can't make up arbitrary damages, but they don't have to; both contract law and torts come into play when you violate a license contract and cause damages in the process. And no, you haven't discovered a great way for absolutely anybody to evade any contract by laundering software through an anonymous third party.
  - bumbledraven 16y ago
    Do those terms attempt to prohibit the development of bots, or just their use? If it's the former, why would we want the government to force someone who never entered into a contract with Blizzard to comply with the terms of that contract? By the way, I never said this was my "discovery"; I think it's a legitimate question about the extent to which we should be free to tinker with things.