THE DEBATE OF THE MILLENIA CONTINUES

[Kingston]

Equitable Remedies. You hereby agree that Blizzard would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this Agreement were not specifically enforced, and therefore you agree that we shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of the TOU, in addition to such other remedies as we may otherwise have available to us under applicable laws.

The hell does that mean? I do not possess a degree in Law, but that looks weird to me. They can send you a bill for no reason at all or what?

 

[Gragt]

Looks like the Jews got hold of Blizzard.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Equitable Remedies. You hereby agree that Blizzard would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this Agreement were not specifically enforced, and therefore you agree that we shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of the TOU, in addition to such other remedies as we may otherwise have available to us under applicable laws.

The hell does that mean? I do not possess a degree in Law, but that looks weird to me. They can send you a bill for no reason at all or what?

Not quite. What they are TRYING to claim is that if you are held by a court to be in breach of contract, they don't need to show that you have actually cost them substantial $$$ or stolen business from them in order to sue you for damages. Proving damage can often be more difficult than proving the breach in the first place. Say that you get caught, against the EULA, stealing Blizz's art assets and then using them in a freeware game without Blizz's permission. Blizz then goes to sue and the litigation gets to the part where the Court wants to know how much $$$ Blizz has actually lost due to the breach (I know the US is more liberal than this with damages, allowing punitive damages etc, but in Australia/UK you can only sue for the amount that the breach has cost you - you can't ever be put in a BETTER position than you would have been if not for the breach). Blizz's problem is that it is going to be difficult to show that those art assets had any real market value - it MIGHT be able to claim that it could have sold them to you, or someone else, for a substantial amount, but that could get tricky - they'd need to show that there are potential buyers out there. In any event it would take time and effort, and that means lawyers' fees.

The term is trying to skip past all that, so they can simply sue for damages because you breached the contract, without having to show that they lost money due to that breach.

Whether they succeed is another question. Many lawyers think that EULAs are unenforceable, and companies have been notoriously reluctant to try to enforce them. Better from their perspective that 98% of people obey the EULAs because they 'might' get sued, than risk losing a major case and have a court ruling declaring to everyone that the EULA is unenforceable.

 

[poocolator]

HOLY SHIT ITS LIEK WORLD OF WARCRAFT BUT WITH VIOLENCE AND STUFF
I'll see your pretty meadows and raise you a rainbow

 

[Imbecile]

Looks like I need to add another item to my "Components of a good RPG" list.

C&C.
Elves dual wielding exceptionally large breasts.
And now - Colour Scheme.