WoWInterface and Curse working together to help protect authors and other site-users

[Zyonin]

Originally Posted by Reversion Thats a good argument but annoy the users and no one will use if its too restrictive. Remember its users and fans that are the priority, keep them happy and they will keep you happy.

Hmm, you seem to think that Authors actually care about make a user "happy". Sorry, that just does not work that way. AddOn authors are not in the buisness of make a unknown user "happy". They usually write AddOns to make themselves happy. Then they share the results with others. Sounds selfish right? In a way, it is, however almost all AddOns got started because an Author was irritated by something with UI, some limitation, something that just did work "quite right" or maybe just something aesthetic. Rather than putting up with the issue they decided to fix it in some way. Voila! An AddOn is born. Then they decide to share their little chunk of code with others.

An AddOn author is not in the customer service business, they don't care if you go use another AddOn. Authors (for the expectation of a very few) are not into AddOns to make money. They write these little code bits in their spare time and for fun. In reality, it's the user that should be grateful that authors share their AddOns with them. I know I am. I am grateful enough to provide support for other's AddOns (via these and other forums) and to pass the word about the AddOns I like. If I had some spare cash I would donate to both this site and my favorite authors. I have learned the ways of version control systems, pull beta builds, test em and break them, then give back useful feedback and maybe even some code to help fix what I break. However if the authors decided that they had enough of the BS and pulled their mods, I would understand completely. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Always remember that at any time person could delete their addons directory and still have a very enjoyable experience.

By all means, select your AddOn folder and hit Delete. Most authors simply won't care. I actually have seen an author revoke an user's license to use that author's AddOns after the user complained that he could not get it via WoWMatrix. The author does have the authority to do this. The term "We reserve the right to refuse service" applies to most of the AddOns released.

[Torhal]

Originally Posted by Lykofos I actually have seen an author revoke an user's license to use that author's AddOns after the user complained that he could not get it via WoWMatrix.

Actually, it was revoked because the guy basically said "make this available via wowmatrix or else". Quite the epic post.

[Zyonin]

Originally Posted by Torhal Actually, it was revoked because the guy basically said "make this available via wowmatrix or else". Quite the epic post.

Yes it was. I loved it. User "entitlement" is really getting under my skin these days. That guy got his just desserts.

[us2006027321]

Originally Posted by Lykofos Yes it was. I loved it. User "entitlement" is really getting under my skin these days. That guy got his just desserts.

I will never cease to be amazed by the idea that anyone deserves anything. I'm not the richest guy in the world. By all rights, I'm homeless and jobless right now, and if it were not for the kindness of my roommate (one of my best friends *evar*), I'd be down at the local rescue mission. The situation I'm in has taught me a great deal about just what I do and don't deserve. The only things I deserve in life are the things I go and get myself. If I didn't make it, purchase it, work for it, or do some other thing to put my stamp of genuine entitlement on it, I can't say I should have it. If I do have it, it's my job to express an attitude of gratitude, and if I can't do that, I'd best be prepared to get at least some friction if not outright negative feedback.

All you spoiled little 16 year olds who think you deserve anything from anyone need to have a surgery to repair your cranial rectosis. The fact that you think you know everything is really beginning to grind on the nerves of those of us who actually have a clue.

/growl

[Petrah]

Originally Posted by us2006027321 All you spoiled little 16 year olds who think you deserve anything from anyone need to have a surgery to repair your cranial rectosis. The fact that you think you know everything is really beginning to grind on the nerves of those of us who actually have a clue. /growl

Rectal cranial inversion begins long before the age of 16 lol. Trust me, I have a 14 year old going on 30 (and an X husband still in his terrible two's). And to think I'll have to repeat all this terror again when my son turns into a teen....... shoot me now I just watched Bill Cosby: Himself on On Demand the other day. Gawd that's still funny even after the 10th time.

/back on topic now... sorry!

[Spectro]

Sounds like WoWUI needs to take some drastic measures.

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by us2006027321 You seem to lack a very basic understanding about how the legal system, legal documents, and legal jargon function, so I'm going to spell it out for you.

Actually, in this regard, it is you who lacks the understanding. Go talk to an attorney, look at actual cases, and come back for a more educated discussion regarding the issues.

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by Silenia That's where you're wrong. Terms of Service once written and in view and/or easily accessible to visitors. users, clients etcetera, is a legal binding contract as soon as you begin using that service weather you read the ToS or not.

Actually I am right, and it has been this way for a long time. Case after case has established precedent in this area. From the "take-it-or-leave-it basis" that they present, to the one sidedness of the obligations, to the way they almost always slant unfairly to the provider over the user, to the complete inability to prove that a user read and made an affirmative action to agree to them.

A CONTRACT CANNOT BE PASSIVELY ENTERED INTO.

[Spectro]

You typed in wowinterface.com on your own free will. That's not passive.

[Tekkub]

Originally Posted by Reversion Am I petty thief in the belief that a system with a license like Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative would be bad? I am just a fan of addons and other creative work not being locked down to a single source.

Well, yea, I hate licenses and think they're all bad. My opinions would fall closest to "No Attribution, Noncommercial, Derivative with reservations"... but I'm not about to officially declare anything anywhere. Authors that know me know they're welcome to take my code and do anything they want with it, and they don't' have to credit me at all.

Originally Posted by Silenia Rectal cranial inversion

**** I haven't heard that phrase since I stopped living with my mother.

Originally Posted by us2006027321 or do some other thing

I think you know what you have to do if you want to use my addons.

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by us2006027321 All you spoiled little 16 year olds who think you deserve anything from anyone need to have a surgery to repair your cranial rectosis. The fact that you think you know everything is really beginning to grind on the nerves of those of us who actually have a clue. /growl

If only you did have a clue....

How about some enforcement of the rules of behavior, applied equally regardless of the side they are on?

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by Spectro You typed in wowinterface.com on your own free will. That's not passive.

And still doesn't bind me to a contract, in any fashion whatsoever.

[Tekkub]

Originally Posted by Penguar IF WI and Curse wanted to be totally correct with the law, they would get a signed license agreement stating that they had the right to redistribute the software. Without such, basically the sites run at risk of doing something they should not be doing, but a judge may look at it as general practice being acceptable.

From the addon upload form:

You certify that either you are the copyright holder of all documents being submitted or have permission to submit them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that pretty well covers it, you acknowledge that you own the copyright on the addon, and you're uploading it to the site for them to host it. Real, tangible signatures haven't been required for some time, hell I've not signed a tax return in nearly a decade.

[Tristanian]

Originally Posted by Jalandar Actually I am right, and it has been this way for a long time. Case after case has established precedent in this area. From the "take-it-or-leave-it basis" that they present, to the one sidedness of the obligations, to the way they almost always slant unfairly to the provider over the user, to the complete inability to prove that a user read and made an affirmative action to agree to them. A CONTRACT CANNOT BE PASSIVELY ENTERED INTO.

The only thing you are right about, is the last sentence in caps. The thing is, from the point where you (of your own free will) choose to use the service (eg software, website etc), you cease being "passive" about it. Specifically, in the ToS for MMOUI, it is clearly mentioned that :

2. Accepting the Terms In order to use the Services, you must first agree to the Terms. You may not use the Services if you do not accept the Terms. You can accept the Terms by: (A) clicking to accept or agree to the Terms, where this option is made available to you by ZAM in the user interface for any Service; or (B) by actually using the Services. In this case, you understand and agree that ZAM will treat your use of the Services as acceptance of the Terms from that point onwards....

In all honesty, I can't see how it can be any more crystal clear than that. Claiming you "didn't know" or didn't read the ToS is not an excuse, considering the fact they are made available and you can access them directly. In the vast majority of case, such terms are legally binding, provided they are lawful and do not infringe on any of your rights. I would love to see you argue otherwise in a court, unless you are referring to very specific cases or you are here just to argue semantics, for the sake of argument.

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by Tekkub From the addon upload form: Correct me if I'm wrong, but that pretty well covers it, you acknowledge that you own the copyright on the addon, and you're uploading it to the site for them to host it. Real, tangible signatures haven't been required for some time, hell I've not signed a tax return in nearly a decade.

You are exactly right, the submitter is making an active affirmation of the terms of the submission, and thus is actively agreeing to those terms. And in this case, a real exchange takes place, the author gets hosting and other services, in return for the agreement to distribute. This type of electronic agreement is legal and enforceable, much like the WoW TOS is.

[Vyper]

Jalendar, I'm still waiting for any kind of reference to back up your statements. I already linked you the Google ToS, which state they are a legally binding document.

Yet it seems you expect us to believe you, just because you say so, even though Google's legal staff seems to feel differently.

Sorry, but your argument of "I'm right and that's all there is too it" doesn't hold much water.

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by Vyper Jalendar, I'm still waiting for any kind of reference to back up your statements. I already linked you the Google ToS, which state they are a legally binding document. Yet it seems you expect us to believe you, just because you say so, even though Google's legal staff seems to feel differently. Sorry, but your argument of "I'm right and that's all there is too it" doesn't hold much water.

I didn't see your post, but Google cannot bind someone to their TOS just because someone goes to the site and does a search.

That's a LEGAL Fact.

Now as to things like Gmail, the user affirmatively makes an agreement, as to other Google Services that require an active signup to engage in, and completely inapplicable to this discussion.

[Tekkub]

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

2. Accepting the Terms 2.1 In order to use the Services, you must first agree to the Terms. You may not use the Services if you do not accept the Terms. 2.2 You can accept the Terms by: (A) clicking to accept or agree to the Terms, where this option is made available to you by Google in the user interface for any Service; or (B) by actually using the Services. In this case, you understand and agree that Google will treat your use of the Services as acceptance of the Terms from that point onwards.

Yea, I'm sorry, at this point I think it's really just a matter that should be taken up with Googlegal if you think they (and thus WoWI/ZAM) are in the wrong.

*edit* oh and by the way, go look up "passive contract". You *can* enter into a contract passively. But don't google it if you don't want to passively enter into a contract with them.

[Bluspacecow]

Originally Posted by Tristanian In all honesty, I can't see how it can be any more crystal clear than that. Claiming you "didn't know" or didn't read the ToS is not an excuse, considering the fact they are made available and you can access them directly. In the vast majority of case, such terms are legally binding, provided they are lawful and do not infringe on any of your rights. I would love to see you argue otherwise in a court, unless you are referring to very specific cases or you are here just to argue semantics, for the sake of argument.

Exactly.

Like those people who claim they can't be subject to laws they didn't know about

There was a case recently on Fair Go where a local casino in NZ would not pay out a $100,000 prize to this lady as she had taken this wrist band they gave her off. The terms and conditions of the casino states you couldn't do this ....but it was hidden in a clause and the T & C you had to go to this special counter for. The Lawyer that was consulted on this said this was legally binding.

The happy news is the Casino appeared on Fair Go to say yes those are the rules but to be nice they paid out her cheque.

Sorry for derailing the thread again

[Vyper]

Originally Posted by Jalandar I didn't see your post, but Google cannot bind someone to their TOS just because someone goes to the site and does a search. That's a LEGAL Fact. Now as to things like Gmail, the user affirmatively makes an agreement, as to other Google Services that require an active signup to engage in, and completely inapplicable to this discussion.

Heh... Truthiness in action!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

and for the ToS again see:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy_terms.html (1.4)