The contract would still exist even if you turned off your computer’s ability to render any text what-so-ever.

This page has ALREADY been vacuumed up by the Google overlords…! Somehow, it’s a little unsettling.

sorry, they don’t “got you”. They really don’t. You can’t agree to a contract you can’t understand.

Here’s what they can do:

- kick you off of their game. For any of several reasons, including not meeting the system requirements or not agreeing to the contract (which they can now prove, since it’s posted on boingboing).

- ban you

- squelch you

- put you in game prison

- refuse to take your money

But see, the thing is, they could do all that stuff anyway. It’s their game server. The contract is almost entirely meaningless, as it was in the first place. They put it there hoping it will keep you from suing them, but it won’t even do that; even if you fully understood the contract you agreed to, you can still advance an argument that Blizzard failed to fulfil its duties to you implied by the payment you make to them and/or spelled out by the contract. Cory being unable to read the contract makes no difference to Cory or to Blizzard, because EULA’s are nonsense in the first place, and Wine is just subversively making that fact obvious.

… Followed by a few paragraphs in Spanish.

Underscored by a declaration to the effect that
“I certify that I have read and fully understand all of the above”

Well, that was clearly a statement I could not legally make in good faith, as I simply did NOT understand the writing directly above it.

Given the US Border Securities legendary sense of humor and sanity, I admit I eventually just capitulated and perjured myself like they wanted me to.

I’ve pondered the legality of such “agreements” ever since. There was even a note forbidding me to strike out or modify the document – eg by crossing out the Spanish section.

But I fooled them – I signed my first name (Daniel) in Spanish!

I think your Spanish example hits the nail on the head. There was a string of basically poorly translated text on the screen. The bottom line is that the actual code for the file of the EULA has not changed and thus remains the same no matter what system it is on. The fact that it showed up as random characters on your screen is simply a translating error on your part. Now you could argue that you were unaware of the need to translate it. However there are system requirements for games and pretty much always they say windows blah blah whatever on the sys reqs. So it would be easy for them to make the argument that you should have known what was needed to translate that file correctly.

Agreeing to a contract by clicking “I Agree” assumes that you are fully aware of the content of the EULA. I think there’s no case here Cory, sorry but they’ve got you. They always do.

Failure to do so will result in Ã¥{ý(¤EU/”T including all associated damages.

As an extreme example, if you just happened not to have any kind of monitor at all when you were installing, and so couldn’t see the license, you’d still be agreeing to the terms if you clicked “I agree.”

I believe you violated these terms, the moment you abstracted the installation on WINE and Linux, sir.

That is if even contemplating such an action is not already an offense against some arcane interpretation of ‘intellectual property’ ‘law’.

Could be worse, could be an adjustable rate mortgage.

-”That contract you signed, said you would give us your fist born”
-”No, it didn’t”
-”Yes it did, it must not have been rendered correctly.!

WoW = fun, but shitty in terms of getting what you’re paying for.

Guy_Jin = correct.

WoW = fun, but shitty in terms of getting what you’re paying for.

I know “value for the money” is subjective, however…

For a month of WoW access, during which a typical player might spend between 8 and 80 (!) hours playing/socializing, you spend $16. Two people going to the movies one time for a 1.5 hour flick costs (around here) about $22. WoW is pretty cheap in terms of dollars spent per-unit-time entertained.

At the end of every month I transfer what is left of my “disposable” income for that month into my savings account. This is money that in the past I would normally have spent on movies, other video games, bars, etc… Since I started playing WoW a year and a half ago, the amount I’ve saved in this way is about $6,000. My level of enjoyment in the activities I’ve partaken in hasn’t really changed, but I’ve got a pile of cash that I wouldn’t have had otherwise…. Seems like a bargain to me.

Yeah, “going outside” is free. So there are still better “values” out there than WoW…. That doesn’t mean WoW isn’t a good value in my mind though. Besides, stuff I do outdoors ends up costing me a good deal in terms of equipment and gadgets (yes, I have a gadget problem), such that WoW ends up being cheaper than outdoorsy stuff. The library is free entertainment, but I do that as well, so it’s not an either/or proposition.

It sucks that you got banned, and didn’t get to use the entertainment you paid for. However, if you don’t want to get banned, all you have to do is play by the rules. Then you’ll get 100% of what you paid for.

Are you a lawyer? I’m pretty sure you’re completely wrong about this. Contract law is pretty clear that both parties have to understand the contract they’re agreeing to in order to agree to it, in addition to a number of other burdens that are necessary for there to be a valid legal contract.

There’s nothing in there about a burden on one side or the other to making it understandable – it’s either understood or it isn’t, and if it isn’t understood, it isn’t a contract.

This is just another example of how ridiculous EULAs are, but I’m sure that was the point.

no worries … :-)

I installed some software package or another. It had an EULA, but the programmers had obviously hard-coded the text colour to black – without bothering to change the background colour, so it showed up as black on black.

The Spanish example is a fair point, but it’s not necessarily applicable. If someone signed a contract that had an extra clause written in invisible ink, or printed in white-on-white, it seems unlikely it would hold up in court. No doubt that has been tested at some point by someone taking the “fine print” idea too far (microdot?)

The gist of the contract presented in Cory’s case and in mine, is essentially this: “Do you agree to the following terms? [no terms]“. Seems pretty clear cut to me, and should be easy to get some sensible opinions from legal scholars on the lazyweb.