The Lawbringer: Contracts and the achievement tracker

*Number of ignorant demons may be subject to nerfing.
So last week I introduced y'all to a bit of legal theorizing about how law and WoW might mix if they got pugged together. (Hint: not very well.) Y'all also were clamoring for my dissertation on gold farming. I want to give a big thank you to commentator Arnold for his excellent suggestions for improvements to make, and I promise I will be making those corrections soon. This week we'll be moving into some more concrete topics, prompted by a email from my mailbag:
This is an excellent issue, Wendy, and a subject of much qq-ing on the forums. However, before we can look into what privacy Blizzard may be invading, we need to understand our relationship with Blizzard; to do that, we need to look at a bit of contract law.The new armory prints out date and timestamps for every little move you make in game. Run a heroic, it will show the date and time for every boss you kill. I didn't mind when it printed a date for achievements. But such fine-grained detail being so publicly available is .. invasive of privacy.
Basics of Contract Law
Contrary to popular belief, contracts don't need lawyers, signatures, or even paper. To be binding and enforceable in court, a contract just requires three things: offer, acceptance, and consideration.
- Pro-tip I: Use a lawyer to ensure the contract says what you want it to say.
- Pro-tip II: Write the contract down so everyone knows to what you are agreeing.
- Pro-tip III: Make sure everyone signs the paper so you can prove that the other party agreed to it.
- Pro-tip IV: I am not your lawyer, so don't send anything to me. (See disclaimer below for additional details.)
Acceptance is the point at which the other party agrees to the offer, though it should be noted that instead of accepting, the other party can make a counter offer which then has to be accepted by the other party before a contract has been formed. Now, to accept an offer, you generally have to be a legal adult and of sound mind. Some of you of a devious bent might see "sound mind" and wonder about what happens if you agree to an offer while drunk. For the record, "high as a Georgia pine" is not intoxicated enough to void one's acceptance. Now, our acceptance of Blizzard's terms is done by clicking the "I agree" box after we have scrolled to the bottom of the terms.
The last step in the process is consideration, which is the exchange of money, objects, or even just mutual promises to confirm the agreement. For example, "Will you marry me?" is an offer, "Yes" is the acceptance, and the exchange of the rings and promising "I do" is the consideration. It's important to note that by forming a contract, you are losing control of something that you had, whether it's your money (if you've bought something), your property (if you've sold something), or your time (if you've agreed to mow the yard instead of playing WoW). When we agree to the EULA and TOU, we give up certain rights we might have had otherwise. This is why, when you have a question about your rights regarding World of Warcraft, you should go directly to the EULA/TOU, do not pass Go, do not beg for 200G for [Legal Advice].
Let me repeat: If you have a question about legal issues in World of Warcraft, you should first look at the contracts you agreed to: the End User License Agreement and Terms of Use.
So back to Wendy's email: "Such fine-grained detail is .. invasive of privacy." Now, Black's Law Dictionary describes privacy laws as federal or state statutes that "restrict public access to personal information such as tax returns and medical records." Now, you own your tax returns and medical records. Pop quiz: who owns the information posted on WoW Armory? Hint: open in new tabs the links in the last paragraph.
Go on, I'll wait.
Okay, now that you (hopefully) have the EULA open, scroll on down to section four, letter A.
All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles,...characters, character names, ... character inventories, ... animations, ... character likenesses...) are owned or licensed by Blizzard.
Now, tab on over to the TOU, and scroll down to section four again.
All rights and title in and to the Service (including without limitation any user accounts, titles, ... characters, character names, ... animations, ... character profile information, ...) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors.
You could even look at the bottom of the Armory website.
The data contained herein is proprietary to Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. You are granted a limited license to make personal use of the information contained herein for non-commercial purposes only.
Got that? Blizzard isn't posting your information on www.wowarmory.com; they are posting their information. And what's more, you agreed that the information is theirs.
Now, Blizzard cares a great deal about securing your information that is actually personal: check out their Privacy Statement certified by the ESRB and Terms of Use, Section 9, B, v. Your information is secured to the industry standard and disclosed only to third party vendors with an option for you to opt-out. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Terms of Use to "[c]ommunicate or post any user's personal information in the Game, or on websites or forums related to the Game," The only way to connect a player with an avatar is for that player to reveal their avatar names, (say, with a Facebook app), and anyone who discloses a player's personal information is in violation of the Terms of Use.
Now, the provision goes on to say "except that a user may communicate his or her own personal information in a private message directed to a single user." Strictly speaking, you may violate the Terms of Use by disclosing your own name or address in guild or even trade chat. Remember, before you can get Zaboo'd, you violate the Terms of Use.The point remains that no one can stalk your every move on Armory unless you told them the name of your avatars. If you told your parent/spouse/teacher/therapist your toon's name and regret that they are now able to see what you've been up to, that is neither Blizzard's fault nor Blizzard's problem. That said, as a player myself, I do hope that they will give the same options to restrict publication on the Armory that are available on the Facebook/Twitter application. I'm less concerned about my privacy than that I want to only see all the achievements I've been racking up working on [Loremaster] and [World Explorer] in anticipation of Cataclysm.
Stay tuned for next week when we examine the legal kerfuffle around bans like Ensidia's.
This column is for your entertainment and enlightment only. Information handed out in this column is not to be considered legal advice. If you have real legal questions, please consult a real lawyer.
Filed under: The Lawbringer, Analysis / Opinion






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
ShadowEric Feb 8th 2010 9:08PM
Well said, Amy
Copy/pasting something I already posted on the subject somewhere else:
The fact remains that unless you specifically mention it, nobody knows who you are in real-life. I fail to see how anyone's privacy is compromised when someone cannot link a toon's name to a real life identity.
If someone had an unhealthy interest in you, they could already watch your armory profile closely, see your achievements evolve over time, see the statistics change, see your gear evolve... etc. It's pretty easy to see a pattern and figure out when someone raids for example, without the RSS feed. Not to mention websites that track characters on realms...
The fact that this adds the time of the day is just one extra detail. Everyone's acting as if a pile of info has suddenly become public. That's not the case. Only the time is new and it's now provided in the form of a feed for easy integration into feed readers. So great... you don't have to write an armory parser to get the dates for achievements, statistics... etc. Big deal... there are tons of websites tracking achievements, guild progression by checking individual achievements and the like. Did everyone suddenly realize this was out there?
Again, someone could have written a script to follow your characters' progress even before this came out. Keep this in mind. Run the script often and you wouldn't even need the time that they now provide.
It reminds me of the ilvl situation. Now that it's been made more visible by Blizz, all those GearScore-like addons have come out of the woodwork, even though ilvl isn't a new concept. Same thing here. All they added is the time, the rest was already there and anyone dedicated enough could already know quite a lot about you. Everyone needs to relax and needs to learn to keep their real-life identity separate from their online characters' names. If you don't, you're not being careful enough about security. Your privacy is NOT the same thing as your toon's privacy.
Finally, I still question this concern over the time. People who play when they shouldn't are playing with fire anyway. It's only a matter of time before they got caught anyway, whether they do it at work, or home when they're not supposed to... etc.
Ray Feb 8th 2010 9:17PM
If people honestly thought about it, I don't think they'd truly be as concerned about the time thing. What makes me uncomfortable is that I have no say about my every action becoming public knowledge.
I play at appropriate times, and do nothing to cause concern to anyone who could find my knowledge. However, I have no say about Blizzard posting information about me that has nothing to do with my actual avatar (as opposed to achievements, gear, spec, etc). There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it has a "Big Brother" feel that no one appreciates.
tatsumasa Feb 9th 2010 12:11PM
um, what? the only information this feature is providing that was not previously there that in any way has anything to do with you is that it show you were playing wow at that time. you are not your character. if your character gets an achievement at a certain time and this feature shows it, that does not suddenly make it so that you got the achievement at that time, it just shows you were playing at that time.
Ray Feb 9th 2010 12:57PM
/facepalm
hoss Feb 9th 2010 1:55PM
Tatsumasa right, Blizzard is not making public information about you public. They are making information about their own property public.
Blizzards privacy policy already states that they will not make known any information about YOU, except to 3rd parties (that you can opt-out of)
Outside of the complainers on the forums that don't want others who know them IRL to know that they skipped school, or work to play WoW, there is nothing to worries about.
Ray, though it seems you are accepting of what blizzard has done I personally don't think there is anything to be worried about Big Brother, and if Blizzard ever steps over the line I'm sure their subscription numbers will reflect the player bases concern.
RaydenUni Feb 8th 2010 9:19PM
Amy,
Are you familiar with Terra Nova? (http://terranova.blogs.com/) Many well known researchers, professors, authors who have done various work on online communities, identity, and MMOs post there. It's a very interesting blog and community. Take a look over the list of active authors, I'm sure you'll find a few you know.
The stuff you are writing about seems related, so I thought you might find it interesting.
lawbringerjd Feb 8th 2010 9:25PM
Terra Nova is one of the great blog resources in this field, as Edward Castronova wrote one of the earliest books dealing with these issues, Synthetic Worlds.
Virtually Blind is defunct blog in the field, but its author Benjamin Duranske has published another great book called Virtual Law which a slightly more up-to-date take on the issues. Unlike Castronova, whose background is economics, Duranske is a practicing lawyer, which gives his work a bit more relevance to what I've been studying.
Gamer am I Feb 8th 2010 9:31PM
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. If your others posts will be as informative and well-written as this one, I look forward to reading them. I especially can't wait to see what you have to say about the Ensidia ban. Keep up the good work!
martinwii Feb 8th 2010 9:34PM
Another great post. Very interesting to read. Keep it up and cant wait for the next post!
Silence Feb 8th 2010 9:35PM
"That said, as a player myself, I do hope that they will give the same options to restrict publication on the Armory that are available on the Facebook/Twitter application."
They have no plans to give options for any privacy in the game at all, other than the fact that random players cannot yet see your physical location in game and people can be /ignored.
When everyone was switched to battlenet, I had a few conversations with Blizzard about what they planned to do with the linking of all your characters on all your accounts in all your Blizzard games to one master username. They didn't understand the concept of privacy, and I was asked more than once why I wouldn't want everyone I ever met in any game to see me regardless of what character I was on or what game I was playing.
Want to login to check your auctions on your bank alt without being bothered to tank things on your main? Sorry, that won't be possible anymore once they finish the social networking features they are so hot to roll out.
pirplepig Feb 16th 2010 8:34AM
I wouldnt be surprised if blizzard gives the option to opt out ofr battlenet linking or even an option to opt certain toons out. Just wondering have you ever heard of a term called no.
Jordan Feb 8th 2010 9:45PM
I never thought I'd see the sentence "Can I blow you for crack?" on WoW.com. Kudos!
Dmitry Feb 8th 2010 9:49PM
If one party does not read the terms, cannot really understand the terms even if they read them and/or is a minor incapable of forming a contract for anything but necessities, how is there any "agreement constituting "acceptance?"
Dmitry
Wild Colors Feb 8th 2010 10:05PM
This is the traditional problem large companies with sophisticated legal teams face when they try to have licensing or other agreements that they enter into with normal people (assuming that the normal people don't have lawyers representing them). There's a lot of case law on this. The simple answer is that you can be bound if the contract is written in simple enough language that an ordinary, reasonable person could have understood it. Important clauses that have any serious impact on your legal rights and remedies, like arbitration clauses, need to be highlighted in some way. All caps, bold, underlined, in red. That sort of thing.
Blizzard makes sure that you need to scroll down the contract text and click "accept" in order to play after each new patch. It's ToS and EULA are also fairly simple and straightforward (though a little on the long side). Suffice it to say you probably couldn't get out of it, at least not easily.
That said, where stuff like privacy is concerned, your biggest weapon as a consumer is media attention, not law suits. If Blizzard worries that it is getting bad press, it will strongly consider implementing some additional privacy options.
Rubella Feb 8th 2010 11:00PM
@ Dimirty -- this is very basic but I'm happy to break it down.
"If one party does not read the terms,"
Tough shit. What moron agrees to a contract with0out reading the terms? You do that you have accepted the contract and are bound.
"cannot really understand the terms even if they read them"
Almost impossible to prove in an MMO context that has text-based interface. While there is a defense of capacity good luck proving it in this context.
"and/or is a minor incapable of forming a contract for anything but necessities,"
How does a minor pay for the game? Plus, reread the the ToU and ELUA on the company's treatment of minors and the representations that are made by clicking 'OK'.
And in the end, what purpose does it serve to show non-acceptance in an MMO? Gret - you just screwed yourself out of your account. Unless you're asking generally, then I recommend you go to law school and sit through Contracts I and II (or 'Law and the Market Economy' as it was termed where I went).
Rubella Feb 8th 2010 11:01PM
Yet again I wish I had an 'edit' button. /sigh
Microtonal Feb 9th 2010 12:02AM
@Dmitry:
You can't get out of a valid contract you've signed (or virtually signed) by saying that you didn't read it, because that's not a provable claim. Once you sign on the dotted line (or click the "accept" button, in this case), whether or not you've actually read what you're agreeing to becomes irrelevant.
Of the three possibilities you mention, only the last is legally meaningful, and that's only because minors are statutorily incapable of signing actionable contracts. Hence the whole deal with parental consent.
Mindaika Feb 9th 2010 11:11AM
If one party is literally not able to understand the terms, say for example, you signed a contract you didn't look at that was written entirely in Japanese, the you MIGHT have an argument for voidance, although even then it's shaky since you could, and should, have known that prior to signing.
As for just plain not reading it, well, the courts have pretty consistently upheld cases where people clicked through hundred page long EULA's that you couldn't reasonably be expected to read, on the theory that you could have read it if you wanted.
As for being a minor: the contract is likely viewed as being with the payer, which would probably be the parents of the minor, who again, while probably not reading the contract, still could have and are bound to the obligation.
Zanathos Feb 22nd 2010 3:05PM
Minors aren't supposed to have wow accounts, any minors playing on a WoW account are restricted to playing on their guardian's account.
shinigami052 Feb 8th 2010 9:54PM
I'd really like to hear you discuss our legal rights as players of WoW with regards to the instability of servers. At what point do servers become so laggy or over populated (read 2hr queue times) that Blizzard is no longer fulfilling their side of the "offer" as per your description in the article above. Do we have rights that can void our agreement with Blizzard and force them into compensation or are we SOL? Is there a point where the game becomes unplayable and thus Blizzard can no longer fulfill their side of the "offer" and who determines at which point this occurs?