Issues for Blizzard to Consider Re: Real-ID.

There's a couple problems with Blizzard's new "design vision". Firstly being a release of personal information, which has not been authorized, nor is it desired by a mass of the player base. As a student of Law School, I've always been fascinated by the way the EULA and ToS functions, or I should say attempts to.

Although many people believe that Blizzard simply amending the EULA and ToS at the proper time (and the mass of the player base clicking) "I Agree" to encorporate this will absolve them of any form of wrong doing, they are in reality deluded.

First Point: Does Blizzard truly own our characters? Truly? Granted I am more than aware that they "claim" to. But would this hold up in court? I truly doubt that. You see while a license was originally purchased to play the game, the true extent of our license is in actuality tied to what is defined as the play of the game. (Such as my enjoyment of Kainas, etc. Chiou's enjoyment of the Auction House Game, etc etc.)

Blizzard claims that any characters made are theirs. This was something I found humorous in 2004 and doubly so now. While true they own the bandwidth of our characters, a claim of ownership can successfully be argued by virtue that the advancement of said characters of "Blizzard's property" a detriment to the offeree, and benefit to the offeror has occured. This detriment is formed in the shape of time expended, and monthly fees.

Point Two: (Uniform Commercial Code) Which Blizzard is bound by as a business.

"A contract signed under duress is unconscionable and must be represented "without prejudice" or the instrument is treated as "satisfaction and accord" before the trier of fact. "

(Black's Dictionary) - Unconcionability. Unconcionability is generally recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, to a contract together with contract terms, which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.

Gordon v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., D.C.Ga., 423 F.Supp. 58, 61.
Chouinard vs. Chouinard 568 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1978)

By us playing the game, we have been unfavorably inconvienced, while Blizzard has been benefitted, further there are certain tangible proofs that Blizzard knows this time has value, as evidenced by the Character Transfers, Recustomization, Faction Transfer, Re-Race et al.

Further, by continued (five years if you were her for launch day) use of the game, a material ownership has been established. In order to truly enjoy our game, we are forced to consistently re-sign the TOS and EULA. As long as Blizzard acts within the original Terms of the Agreement, which does not include the dessimination of our personal property (in fact holding instead a promise by Blizzard to PROTECT said identities) we are bound to it. However consistent revisions over the course of five years makes for a strong point that without true verification (which anyone with access to a PC may have hit I agree to) we can argue this.

"If we do not agree, we are deprived of property we have a vested interest in, and are forced to sign to continue enjoying our license."

Forcible Coercion, again ties to Duress. =)

Third Thought: This one is straight out of Torts Law.

"Negligence can only arise out of a act of volition". A action to a injury to a person or a tangible property requires that intent to inflict them be backed by proof, "OR" a failure to exercise proper care to evade them.

The first person who is stalked and assailed, injured, has their identity stolen, killed et al. (because of information which Blizzard Entertainment foolishly displayed) will emmesh them in a negligence claim, and wrongful death. Given that Blizzard is significantly wealthy due to the millions of players, I fervently doubt they could stand up to a million class action negligence suites.

Conclusion: While Blizzard states "if any portion of the agreement is to be found void, it will not affect the remainder of the agreement" they forget themselves and the power inherently vested in the Judicial branch. A Judge will make that decision, not they. If the matter has merit, then one must ask a simple question: Is a contract signed under duress is unconscionable? Under the principle of Stare Decisis it most certainly is.

If Blizzard realizes and concedes that in five years they have largely been unable to curb the bile and hate, that most forums topics seem to stand for, then creation of such a scenario creates a dangerous risk which was ENTIRELY forseeable. Granted I doubt anything but the deletion of this post by Ghostcrawler, as I've never seen eye to eye with him and found much of his replies in the past relatively condescending and at time outright inciteful, but perhaps he and Blizzard will see some reason for once.

I would hope Blizzard rethinks this breach of privacy, and speaks with some of their Lawyers, before this choice kills them financially. I'll be watching. Very interesting, and in the mean time I'll avoid the Forums like the bubonic plague.