| 230 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by thexrated
You got to look at the bigger picture, if he wins on the grounds above, every idiot who got banned could potentially use this to remove their ban, or force SoE and other producers to loosen rules on banning. Hell you never know, gold farmers might even be the next step. 
|
|
Originally posted by Goldknyght
He wont win. As soon as you say I agree to the EULA or agree to a account. you basically signed all ur rights away and they can do what ever they want to a extent and being banned is something u signed up for and you can get banned even if its for no reason. and theres nothing u can do about it. That is untrue. If for example a company released a game and two weeks later banned anyone who played for more than 15 hours a week to increase their profit margins, I'm fairly certain they could get sued and would lose. I think something similar happened to netflix recently and they lost. Eulas are not iron clad contracts (yes the above example is beyond reasonable expectation). Aside from things that would be considered fair use or common protections I think there are plenty of parts that could be challenged. It is not a license for a company to add anything they want to a eula, such as selling your personal information to who every they want after they already have your money. Most contracts have to have bargaining power and eulas don't have that. They are designed to protect a companies products and anything beyond that is open for legal issues. I think this case falls into that areas, but not everything does and you certainly can't sign away your rights by accepting a eula. To do that you need bargaining power in a contract. |
|
Originally posted by Goldknyght And there it is. Every time a game EULA is questioned in any way, shape or form one of these posts appears. TBH although I am not a conspiracy theorist I almost believe these posts are made by Game Company Shills.
Goldnyght; can you produce any case ever, anywhere, where a court has upheld the legality of an EULA in it's entirety? No? An EULA is a contract. Contracts can be disputed. If it gets to court then a court will decide on a case by case basis if that contract is valid and fair. Educate yourself. Scroll down to "Enforceability" here
|
|
Originally posted by Addt4 You got to look at the bigger picture, if he wins on the grounds above, every idiot who got banned could potentially use this to remove their ban, or force SoE and other producers to loosen rules on banning. Hell you never know, gold farmers might even be the next step.
I actually looked at the bigger picture. You place so much trust in mega corporations. I honestly cannot see a paid moderator by SOE being impartial. This is the big brother argument, I suggest you read 1984 to start with. I rather see customers with some way to get their grievances heard and rights protected (customers do have rights). I might not agree with the whole approach to this case, but some of the parts I do support. Losing cases like this will give an unprecedented power to corporations and no legal recourse for customers.
|
|
Originally posted by Addt4 ... Yeah, that's right.
Customers who pay money and get banned by a faceless Moderator under dubious grounds might actually have an avenue of appeal! Shocking!
|
|
Originally posted by hoopty
I fixed that for you. |
|
Originally posted by rhinok
The suit will be dismissed.
Here is the quote from the article that is the gist of it: "Exactly what his behavior entailed isn't specified, though Estavillo claims that he was "exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network."
Here is what the First Amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
So, how did Congress (a.k.a. the American Government) violate his First Amendment Rights?
What many people (both Americans and non-Americans) fail to understand is that the First Amendment does not apply to private property... and yes, a PUBLIC forum owned by Sony IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. He can claim all he wants that that particular forum is his only means of communicating because of his "disabilities"... it doesn't change the fact that the forum is owned by a non-public entity. In this case, Sony.
People need to read what the First Amendment actually says before they go all emo claiming some mod on a privately held forum violated thier rights. Oh well... one of these years we may actually get tort reform to stop these kind of useless lawsuits. |
|
|
Read the actual filing. |
|
|
Sometimes I wounder why I play MMOs when it seems the population is a bunch of whinnie self indulgent people that think they are owed so much. EUA are contracts .... here are the rules if that is ok pay your money and have fun.. If you don't like the rules DON'T play the game. Games are not a god given right. Once you pay your money and enter their world your rights were spelled out in the EUA. If you don't like big corps DON'T give them money. If you don't want to play by the rules DON'T play the game and for God sake don't sue them that will only rase the rates for the majority that can play nice with others. Life does not need to be settled by a Law or a Law suite. |
|
Originally posted by egone111 ??? Irony or contradiction?
|
|
|
Goldknyght
 Novice Member
Joined: 1/12/06
It''s one thing to have a opinion, but enforcing one is unconstitutional. |
Originally posted by Gyrus And there it is. Every time a game EULA is questioned in any way, shape or form one of these posts appears. TBH although I am not a conspiracy theorist I almost believe these posts are made by Game Company Shills.
Goldnyght; can you produce any case ever, anywhere, where a court has upheld the legality of an EULA in it's entirety? No? An EULA is a contract. Contracts can be disputed. If it gets to court then a court will decide on a case by case basis if that contract is valid and fair. Educate yourself. Scroll down to "Enforceability" here
You can dispute the contract all you want but at the end of the day your not going to win. If they dont want you they dont have to have you. The only problem right now with SoE's EULA on MMO's are they tell you the contract after u paid in which the only way i can see you possible winning is if SoE declined to give u a refund. Its like this, I go into a resturant i act up I'm going to be thrown out of the establishment then I'm not going to ever be able to come back period. Don't act a fool and you won't get banned. |
|
Most people here do not understand the issue. They do not have an inkling about the contract law and the controversy that surrounds the current software and online service EULA/TOS issue. On top of that many are under the impression that corporations force them to sign these one-sided contracts in order to protect the customers. And for the good of the customers.
|
|
|
Goldknyght
Novice Member
Joined: 1/12/06
It''s one thing to have a opinion, but enforcing one is unconstitutional. |
I do understand the point in the OneSided contract just if this guy had any vility almost all gaming/software companies would have lawsuits out the arse that they have already lost. Only in a few circumstances has anyone even won a case or even had a judge accept the case. |
Originally posted by xzyax
The suit will be dismissed.
Here is the quote from the article that is the gist of it: "Exactly what his behavior entailed isn't specified, though Estavillo claims that he was "exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network."
Here is what the First Amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
So, how did Congress (a.k.a. the American Government) violate his First Amendment Rights?
What many people (both Americans and non-Americans) fail to understand is that the First Amendment does not apply to private property... and yes, a PUBLIC forum owned by Sony IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. He can claim all he wants that that particular forum is his only means of communicating because of his "disabilities"... it doesn't change the fact that the forum is owned by a non-public entity. In this case, Sony.
People need to read what the First Amendment actually says before they go all emo claiming some mod on a privately held forum violated thier rights. Oh well... one of these years we may actually get tort reform to stop these kind of useless lawsuits.
Thank you. SO tired of people throwing around the term "First Amendment Rights." It does not apply to private property. If I own it, it is within my right to tell you you can't talk about cheese and crackers if I want to. And if you try to be slick, and bring up Cheez-its, well, I can still kick you out. I don't need a legal reason to kick you out of my house... I have the right to just not want you there. |
|
Originally posted by altairzq
eualas and what not that you just click to accept don't have much legal force and are way behind the laws, and are meaningless against an amendment in a constitution.. The First Amendment has absolutely zero impact in this case.
The First Amendment does not apply to private property. |
|
|
I'm still curious what was said. The filing lists Erik's home phone number. Anyone up for calling him and asking what the hell he did that got him banned? |
|
Originally posted by Goldknyght
Actually Goldknyht, were I live the EULA may not be legal AT ALL. There have been a couple of court rulings here (in Australia) where courts have ruled that the "I Agree" button is not equivilent to the signing of a contract. In addition, an EULA here comes under a branch of law called a 'ticket case' (named becuase it includes contracts you find written on tickets AFTER you have already payed your money). Ticket cases are very tricky areas of the law. Just because you win one case, does not mean you will win them all. Cannot challenge an EULA huh? I seem to recall we have had this discussion before? |
|
|
RamenThief7
 Novice Member
Joined: 5/13/09
Undefeatability lies within ourselves. Defeatability lies with the enemy. |
On that filing that states Erik's (the guy suing Sony) conditions: Point 1: Bulls###. Sony's online forums are privately owned, the first amendment is powerless here. Point 2: Erik, you're screwed if you have to appear in California. But, I think in this case it will be in San Jose. Point 3: I got nothing here. Point 4: Ok, so you have alot of mental conditions. It still doesn't change the fact that you're playing with privately owned property, where a mentally challenged person and a non-mentally challenged person will both get banned if they decide to act like jackasses. Point 5: Moderators are helpful inside a game. If a moderator does not abuse his position, he can listen to people's grievances and try to help out. If someone repeatedly acts awful, then moderators can carefully review this and see if it's worth having this person playing. Once again, private property owned by Sony comes to play here... Point 6: Sorry, but once again, you're dealing with private property. You decided to act like a jackass, Sony will make sure that your attitude isn't seen on any of their games ever again. Point 7: I don't know alot about how the rules of chargeback applies to PSN cards. I have no verdict on this point. Point 8: Age really doesn't matter here. Private property rules, on the other hand.... Point 9: Prayer of relief, blah blah blah, no one misses jackasses. The chargeback aspect is the only thing I see important here. Point 10: Well Erik, if you asked for way more money, you wouldn't stand much of a chance. Point 11: Sure whatever. Have a jury, still doesn't change the fact that you will most likely lose this case. |
Originally posted by Goldknyght
Because most people don't want to go to court and many people don't know their rights or the law (like you, for example). You can win cases like this if you stand up and refuse to back down. That often takes time and determination. This guy appears to have nothing but time on his hands. He can devote his energy to fighting the case. Most people would say "It's not worth it for $100." and just quit. Many computer gamers are kids and would not know where to even start. That's why we don't see more of this.
Edit: I don't think he will win on all points - but he may win a couple of them.
|
|
|
Plus, most cases are settled outside courts. There have been many EULA/TOS court cases, many which have been won by the customer. There is no legal framework to cover this issue as a whole (hence the controversy), so it is done case by case basis. And, I agree as well, he might not win all his points, but have a good chance in few. Sony will most likely settle this outside the court. It is bad PR for Sony to be accused of having stolen candy from a kid. |
|
Originally posted by thexrated
Exactly. And as I said, Sony will be checking up on the Moderator concerned at this point. If he/she is under 17 or has any history of being unfair / unprofessional / a Funcom GM {LOL!} or was not properly trained in any way then they will probably try to settle. |
|
|
I'm sure he would of had to agree to some Terms of Services explaining code of conduct for people using the network. It sounds like this person would of had to agree to these terms of services. It sounds like he than broke the terms of services. If you enter into a contract and than break it you can't sue (and win, hopefully). That's why gaming sites, forums, etc have Terms of Services and EULA's, to protect the company from idiots like this. |
|
Originally posted by Czzarre
With this new "President" and the ACLU I am sure he will get his own 5 trillion dollar "stimulus" package and a talk show on CNN.
|
|
Originally posted by Slampig
But then again with the old "President" and the Patriot Act all of our civil rights was being taken away. Torture, phone bugging, email intercepts, arrests and detention for no reasonable cause, etc, etc. |
|
|
RamenThief7
Novice Member
Joined: 5/13/09
Undefeatability lies within ourselves. Defeatability lies with the enemy. |
You know, I hope will all agree that we're hoping that the guy loses the case and Sony wins. Why? Because it's not just gaming that will be affected. This guy is challenging private property and the freedom of speech not working with it. If he wins on that point, that means for now on you could use the first amendment in privately owned websites to defend your actions. Jackasses, trollers, flamers, they will be unstoppable if the guy wins his first point. The chargeback aspect is questionable, but I do not know the laws on this very well. If you followed the law, many of the points Erik has would fail, and he would lose. The only case he has is the chargeback aspect, and if he can win a jury over with his "mentally challenged" condition, the jury would lose their common sense if they bought into that crap. Hopefully, the jury realizes that the first amendment is not valid with privately owned property, and that this guy was banned from playing Sony games for a reason. |
