You know that part where you have to create an account before you can post? That removes the "public" claim. In order to claim the forum/chat/whatever is "public", you would have to be able to freely post at will without having a membership. The account makes you a member of a private group, which makes you susceptible to the rules of said private group.
As I say, it depends on the 'screening' and the local laws.
'Membership' can still be 'public' depending on the law. Particularly if the only qualification required is that you purchase a product in a retail outlet.
For example: Is a newspaper (New Your Times for example) public or private? If it's private then can the NYT publish whateer they like? This can get very complex.
... According to seveal websites, every state has laws against obscene language. In nine U.S. states, it is illegal to use profanity in public or on the telephone, as it is intimidating and threatening. Though profanity convictions are rare, profanity can have unpleasant consequences. People charged with disorderly conduct often find their language introduced as evidence against them. I'm pretty sure n00b isn't considered profane, whereas pussy is. Maybe one day n00b will be considered profane, but not now. It's the diff between weed and alcohol. Is one worse than the other. I don't know, but one is legal, the other not. Well, except for medicinal marijuana and Marinol, but you get the idea I think.. I called that guy a douchbag because he was warned twice his behavior was in violation, and instead of relenting, he purposely upped his ranting in a direct effort to violate the standards again. If mmorpg felt my calling him a duchbag asshole was overstepping their rules, I would not have done it again if I were told not to. That guy clearly thought he was above the rules of the game.
And TBH if I was Sony that is what I would follow up.
Use of Profanity over the Telephone.
But again, then it is not up to Sony to ban him and keep his unused credit. It becomes a matter for the authorities.
And it is a slippery slope too - because then he could 'grief' Sony's other customers if he could get access to the chat in any way.
Simply launching case after case against anyone swearing. I mean... "WTF"?
The solution for Sony is to offer him a refund on any unused credit and offer to buy back his used games and PS at a fair price (the goods are all second hand - so that won't be much).
Explain that he is welcome to keep the games and PS but he is no longer welcome on their network.
Then it becomes his choice.
At that point - if it goes to court then Sony have made a fair offer and attempt to resolve the issue.
Sony 1, douchbag 0.
Attempting to stand on the EULA would be a mistake.
Yeah, and you know I can't think of how Sony can claim money used to purchase credit is unrefundable. If there is a positive balance remaining on the account it doesn't belong to them since it hasn't ben used to purchase anything yet. I think Sony is going on the assumption that since a user purchased credit, the user had every intention of using the credit to purchase DLC or other services. I've gotten scewed by purchasing Visa gift cards, but loset the money when it wasn't spent soon enough. WTF? It was my money.
The fact of the matter is that Sony is providing a service (SaaS). The company, per the EULA and/or TOS, reserves the right to discontinue services to any customer, should that customer break the rules.
It doesn't matter what the rule is: if one of the conditions for playing an online video game is "You can't take a piss while eating a slice of pizza on Thursday nights," and you agree to abide by that rule, and the company discovers that you have been "eating pizza while taking a piss on Thursday nights," then you have broken a rule, which was a condition for playing the company's video game, which means the company reserves the right to discontinue offering services to that customer.
If it is stated in the TOS or EULA that a player may not use slanderous terms against other players or the company's staff as a condition of using a service, and then the player knowingly and intentionally uses slanderous terms, then the player will be punished accordingly, either with a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Hell, if the player was harsh enough, lawsuits may even be filed against him for slander or harrassment (and after watching that youtube video, that guy said quite a few slanderous things about Sony, as well as Sony's staff).
If anything, this guy is implicating himself by posting that video on Youtube, he is advertising exactly what he got banned for, which was most likely a violation of the terms he agreed to when he clicked that "Agree" button. He's just digging himself a deeper grave by posting that crap.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
The fact of the matter is that Sony is providing a service (SaaS). The company, per the EULA and/or TOS, reserves the right to discontinue services to any customer, should that customer break the rules. It doesn't matter what the rule is: if one of the conditions for playing an online video game is "You can't take a piss while eating a slice of pizza on Thursday nights," and you agree to abide by that rule, and the company discovers that you have been "eating pizza while taking a piss on Thursday nights," then you have broken a rule, which was a condition for playing the company's video game, which means the company reserves the right to discontinue offering services to that customer. If it is stated in the TOS or EULA that a player may not use slanderous terms against other players or the company's staff as a condition of using a service, and then the player knowingly and intentionally uses slanderous terms, then the player will be punished accordingly, either with a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Hell, if the player was harsh enough, lawsuits may even be filed against him for slander or harrassment (and after watching that youtube video, that guy said quite a few slanderous things about Sony, as well as Sony's staff). If anything, this guy is implicating himself by posting that video on Youtube, he is advertising exactly what he got banned for, which was most likely a violation of the terms he agreed to when he clicked that "Agree" button. He's just digging himself a deeper grave by posting that crap.
You know nothing about contracts do you?
Yes, the EULA can contain anything (any contract can) - but in the event of a dispute (such as this) that contract will go before a Judge. At that point, if you have unreasonable terms in there the Judge may rule any or all of those terms invalid.
EULAs are interesting because of the way they are presented and whom they are presented to.
You often cannot see the EULA until after you part with your money. And legally, that is a minefield right there.
More than that, they are often not in plain English and presented to minors.
Also there is the problem that EULAs are often 'piggybacked' - so while I agree to Creative Assembly's EULA I also have to agree to STEAM's to play the game?
And you have to give customers options - what if they don't agree to the EULA? Can they get their money back?
In addition, even after an EULA (or any contract) is in place there are all sort of little things that can complicate the issue:
"Standard Practice" & "Tacit Agreements" to name a couple.
In this case, for example, if he can show his behaviour is 'normal' and 'accepted' in such games or that other people do it and don't get banned, or that the bans are less than his then he has a start to his case.
As for 'slander' and 'harrassment' then again it depends on local laws. Slander is not always so cut and dried either.
In many cases you have to show damage to win on this. Has he damaged Sony by calling the "Moderator" (who is in fact several people) a "pussy"?
As I said, Sony would be better to go after him for abuse of the telecommunications system.
The fact of the matter is that Sony is providing a service (SaaS). The company, per the EULA and/or TOS, reserves the right to discontinue services to any customer, should that customer break the rules. It doesn't matter what the rule is: if one of the conditions for playing an online video game is "You can't take a piss while eating a slice of pizza on Thursday nights," and you agree to abide by that rule, and the company discovers that you have been "eating pizza while taking a piss on Thursday nights," then you have broken a rule, which was a condition for playing the company's video game, which means the company reserves the right to discontinue offering services to that customer. If it is stated in the TOS or EULA that a player may not use slanderous terms against other players or the company's staff as a condition of using a service, and then the player knowingly and intentionally uses slanderous terms, then the player will be punished accordingly, either with a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Hell, if the player was harsh enough, lawsuits may even be filed against him for slander or harrassment (and after watching that youtube video, that guy said quite a few slanderous things about Sony, as well as Sony's staff). If anything, this guy is implicating himself by posting that video on Youtube, he is advertising exactly what he got banned for, which was most likely a violation of the terms he agreed to when he clicked that "Agree" button. He's just digging himself a deeper grave by posting that crap.
You know nothing about contracts do you?
Yes, the EULA can contain anything (any contract can) - but in the event of a dispute (such as this) that contract will go before a Judge. At that point, if you have unreasonable terms in there the Judge may rule any or all of those terms invalid.
EULAs are interesting because of the way they are presented and whom they are presented to.
You often cannot see the EULA until after you part with your money. And legally, that is a minefield right there.
More than that, they are often not in plain English and presented to minors.
Also there is the problem that EULAs are often 'piggybacked' - so while I agree to Creative Assembly's EULA I also have to agree to STEAM's to play the game?
And you have to give customers options - what if they don't agree to the EULA? Can they get their money back?
In addition, even after an EULA (or any contract) is in place there are all sort of little things that can complicate the issue:
"Standard Practice" & "Tacit Agreements" to name a couple.
In this case, for example, if he can show his behaviour is 'normal' and 'accepted' in such games or that other people do it and don't get banned, or that the bans are less than his then he has a start to his case.
As for 'slander' and 'harrassment' then again it depends on local laws. Slander is not always so cut and dried either.
In many cases you have to show damage to win on this. Has he damaged Sony by calling the "Moderator" (who is in fact several people) a "pussy"?
As I said, Sony would be better to go after him for abuse of the telecommunications system.
Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed?
I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof. Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban.
Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has ever been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game. Hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable.
edit: fixed some wording
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
... Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed? I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law. I take it you don't drive? You can also get a ticket for going too slowly. You aren't speeding...so how does that work?
If all the traffic is moving at 40kmh in a 60kmh zone and you attempt to drive at 60 (causing an accident) you are not at fault, right?
Please don't bring silly arguments in here or I will be forced to look up "Fallacy" in Wiki.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof.
YouTube? Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban. Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has never been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game that hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable. Separate issue. Interesting - but for another thread. Don't make make me reach for Wiki.
Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed?
I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law.
I take it you don't drive? You can also get a ticket for going too slowly. You aren't speeding...so how does that work?
If all the traffic is moving at 40kmh in a 60kmh zone and you attempt to drive at 60 (causing an accident) you are not at fault, right?
Please don't bring silly arguments in here or I will be forced to look up "Fallacy" in Wiki.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof.
YouTube?
Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban.
Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has never been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game that hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable.
Separate issue. Interesting - but for another thread. Don't make make me reach for Wiki.
... Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed? I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law. I take it you don't drive? You can also get a ticket for going too slowly. You aren't speeding...so how does that work?
If all the traffic is moving at 40kmh in a 60kmh zone and you attempt to drive at 60 (causing an accident) you are not at fault, right?
Please don't bring silly arguments in here or I will be forced to look up "Fallacy" in Wiki.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof.
YouTube? Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban. Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has never been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game that hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable. Separate issue. Interesting - but for another thread. Don't make make me reach for Wiki.
Sorry, backing out of this one before I say something I'll regret. Have a blessed day and <vulgarity> off.
edit: vulgarity
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
... Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed? I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law. I take it you don't drive? You can also get a ticket for going too slowly. You aren't speeding...so how does that work? If all the traffic is moving at 40kmh in a 60kmh zone and you attempt to drive at 60 (causing an accident) you are not at fault, right? Please don't bring silly arguments in here or I will be forced to look up "Fallacy" in Wiki.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof.
YouTube? Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban. Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has never been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game that hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable. Separate issue. Interesting - but for another thread. Don't make make me reach for Wiki.
Sorry been a long day and needed to step back from the comp for a second there.
Anyway, considering you used the metric system in your example, that tells me we are not from the same place. Laws may be different in your neck of the woods, but speeding is speeding.
In the states, the cops are more than willing to hand out tickets. Speeding is a big one here, people will get pulled over and ticketed for even going a couple miles over the limit. The other day I got pulled over for going 53 in a 50. Fortunately the cop was nice enough not to ticket me, but others out there aren't as fortunate.
Basically it's a slap on the wrist here. They give you a ticket, you take the ticket to the court house and can either dispute the claim in court, or you can pay a fee and have the ticket dropped from your record (I've gone through this process twice in the past ~10 years since I got my license).
Now, as far as driving too slow. Some areas (for instance the highways in Minnesota) there will be a minimum and a maximum speed limit. Here the minimum is usually 40 MPH, and the max around 70 - 75 MPH. If you don't drive between 40 and 75 MPH, you get a ticket. Then on other roads (residential, county roads, etc) there will be a single speed limit (usually 30 MPH on residential roads). If you don't drive the speed that the sign tells you to drive, then you get a ticket.
I guess the most important aspect of my "speeding" example is that sometimes laws and rules are put into place for the safety and protection of others. If someone breaks the rules, then they could be considered a risk or a threat to the well being of others. That's all.
Have a good one.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
Is one more idiot in the world really newsworthy? Anyone that believes that the term "right to free speech" is a law in itself is suffering from extreme ignorance. Read the 1st amendment then try to understand that it says nothing about what sony may or may not do.
... Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed? I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law. I take it you don't drive? You can also get a ticket for going too slowly. You aren't speeding...so how does that work?
If all the traffic is moving at 40kmh in a 60kmh zone and you attempt to drive at 60 (causing an accident) you are not at fault, right?
Please don't bring silly arguments in here or I will be forced to look up "Fallacy" in Wiki. How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof. YouTube? Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban. Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has never been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game that hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable. Separate issue. Interesting - but for another thread. Don't make make me reach for Wiki.
Seriously Wiki for your legal answer?? You''ve GOT to be kidding.
I guess the most important aspect of my "speeding" example is that sometimes laws and rules are put into place for the safety and protection of others. If someone breaks the rules, then they could be considered a risk or a threat to the well being of others. That's all. Have a good one.
See that word there?
Laws
An EULA is not Law. It is a contract of some type. It does not replace or override the LAW.
That is where your whole "If you are speeding..." example falls flat.
Seriously Wiki for your legal answer?? You''ve GOT to be kidding.
Another one who doesn't read well?
I was referring to this: FALLACY (A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion.)
As for using Wiki as a source of info? All knowledge has to come from somewhere. I wouldn't use Wiki in court without doing additional research - but it's fine for a brief explanation on a forum where you don't want to have to re-invent the wheel.
For example - if I was talking to someone and they didn't know what a Luddite was... you could post a wiki link.
Incidently, I never said they shouldn't ban him (read back) just that he raised a valid point that they shouldn't keep his money.
You have a nice day too. Compliments to you as well.
Maybe. You can forfiet any right to a refund do to failure to comply with the terms of a contract. Usually for small sums and reasonable ciircumstances, such as the customer being a complete fuckwit, it's legally allowed.
Maybe. But that is for a court to decide.
So someone should really take the matter to court... oh... yeah.
Comments
You know that part where you have to create an account before you can post? That removes the "public" claim. In order to claim the forum/chat/whatever is "public", you would have to be able to freely post at will without having a membership. The account makes you a member of a private group, which makes you susceptible to the rules of said private group.
As I say, it depends on the 'screening' and the local laws.
'Membership' can still be 'public' depending on the law. Particularly if the only qualification required is that you purchase a product in a retail outlet.
For example: Is a newspaper (New Your Times for example) public or private? If it's private then can the NYT publish whateer they like? This can get very complex.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
And TBH if I was Sony that is what I would follow up.
Use of Profanity over the Telephone.
But again, then it is not up to Sony to ban him and keep his unused credit. It becomes a matter for the authorities.
And it is a slippery slope too - because then he could 'grief' Sony's other customers if he could get access to the chat in any way.
Simply launching case after case against anyone swearing. I mean... "WTF"?
The solution for Sony is to offer him a refund on any unused credit and offer to buy back his used games and PS at a fair price (the goods are all second hand - so that won't be much).
Explain that he is welcome to keep the games and PS but he is no longer welcome on their network.
Then it becomes his choice.
At that point - if it goes to court then Sony have made a fair offer and attempt to resolve the issue.
Sony 1, douchbag 0.
Attempting to stand on the EULA would be a mistake.
Yeah, and you know I can't think of how Sony can claim money used to purchase credit is unrefundable. If there is a positive balance remaining on the account it doesn't belong to them since it hasn't ben used to purchase anything yet. I think Sony is going on the assumption that since a user purchased credit, the user had every intention of using the credit to purchase DLC or other services. I've gotten scewed by purchasing Visa gift cards, but loset the money when it wasn't spent soon enough. WTF? It was my money.
They don't play the game, that's their option. By playing the game, they have said that they agree to follow the EULA.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
They don't play the game, that's their option. By playing the game, they have said that they agree to follow the EULA.
Unfortunately, the law (the Judges who interpret it) do not always agree with you.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
The fact of the matter is that Sony is providing a service (SaaS). The company, per the EULA and/or TOS, reserves the right to discontinue services to any customer, should that customer break the rules.
It doesn't matter what the rule is: if one of the conditions for playing an online video game is "You can't take a piss while eating a slice of pizza on Thursday nights," and you agree to abide by that rule, and the company discovers that you have been "eating pizza while taking a piss on Thursday nights," then you have broken a rule, which was a condition for playing the company's video game, which means the company reserves the right to discontinue offering services to that customer.
If it is stated in the TOS or EULA that a player may not use slanderous terms against other players or the company's staff as a condition of using a service, and then the player knowingly and intentionally uses slanderous terms, then the player will be punished accordingly, either with a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Hell, if the player was harsh enough, lawsuits may even be filed against him for slander or harrassment (and after watching that youtube video, that guy said quite a few slanderous things about Sony, as well as Sony's staff).
If anything, this guy is implicating himself by posting that video on Youtube, he is advertising exactly what he got banned for, which was most likely a violation of the terms he agreed to when he clicked that "Agree" button. He's just digging himself a deeper grave by posting that crap.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
And just to reiterate, he was not just outright banned. He was WARNED multiple times before being banned.
Which means Sony has ample justification for banning him. That guy needs to take a chill pill, and accept the fact that he screwed up.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
You know nothing about contracts do you?
Yes, the EULA can contain anything (any contract can) - but in the event of a dispute (such as this) that contract will go before a Judge. At that point, if you have unreasonable terms in there the Judge may rule any or all of those terms invalid.
EULAs are interesting because of the way they are presented and whom they are presented to.
You often cannot see the EULA until after you part with your money. And legally, that is a minefield right there.
More than that, they are often not in plain English and presented to minors.
Also there is the problem that EULAs are often 'piggybacked' - so while I agree to Creative Assembly's EULA I also have to agree to STEAM's to play the game?
And you have to give customers options - what if they don't agree to the EULA? Can they get their money back?
In addition, even after an EULA (or any contract) is in place there are all sort of little things that can complicate the issue:
"Standard Practice" & "Tacit Agreements" to name a couple.
In this case, for example, if he can show his behaviour is 'normal' and 'accepted' in such games or that other people do it and don't get banned, or that the bans are less than his then he has a start to his case.
As for 'slander' and 'harrassment' then again it depends on local laws. Slander is not always so cut and dried either.
In many cases you have to show damage to win on this. Has he damaged Sony by calling the "Moderator" (who is in fact several people) a "pussy"?
As I said, Sony would be better to go after him for abuse of the telecommunications system.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Anyone have a PACER account so we can keep track of any filings - motions/responses/orders or whatever? I think this would be a fun case to follow.
My prediction:
He gets his money back on any prepaid online credit. That's it.
Sony told that if they ban someone this way they must refund unused funds on request.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
You know nothing about contracts do you?
Yes, the EULA can contain anything (any contract can) - but in the event of a dispute (such as this) that contract will go before a Judge. At that point, if you have unreasonable terms in there the Judge may rule any or all of those terms invalid.
EULAs are interesting because of the way they are presented and whom they are presented to.
You often cannot see the EULA until after you part with your money. And legally, that is a minefield right there.
More than that, they are often not in plain English and presented to minors.
Also there is the problem that EULAs are often 'piggybacked' - so while I agree to Creative Assembly's EULA I also have to agree to STEAM's to play the game?
And you have to give customers options - what if they don't agree to the EULA? Can they get their money back?
In addition, even after an EULA (or any contract) is in place there are all sort of little things that can complicate the issue:
"Standard Practice" & "Tacit Agreements" to name a couple.
In this case, for example, if he can show his behaviour is 'normal' and 'accepted' in such games or that other people do it and don't get banned, or that the bans are less than his then he has a start to his case.
As for 'slander' and 'harrassment' then again it depends on local laws. Slander is not always so cut and dried either.
In many cases you have to show damage to win on this. Has he damaged Sony by calling the "Moderator" (who is in fact several people) a "pussy"?
As I said, Sony would be better to go after him for abuse of the telecommunications system.
Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed?
I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof. Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban.
Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has ever been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game. Hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable.
edit: fixed some wording
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
My prediction:
He gets his money back on any prepaid online credit. That's it.
Sony told that if they ban someone this way they must refund unused funds on request.
And your probably right..But it probably take 30 days before he gets it..And how long was his ban?
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
My prediction:
Knowing how hardcore mafia-like those homosexual groups are in cali, this fool might be getting a visit from the reaper soon!
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
My prediction:
He gets his money back on any prepaid online credit. That's it.
Sony told that if they ban someone this way they must refund unused funds on request.
And your probably right..But it probably take 30 days before he gets it..And how long was his ban?
If I was Sony, I'd send that refund asap, citing it as standard policy, and then sit back and relax as court day approaches.
Originally posted by xiirot
...
Lets say I get pulled over for speeding, when I was really just going with the flow of traffic. Do the other cars on the road determine the acceptable speed, or does the law determine the acceptable speed?
I can bitch and complain to the officer all day long about how all the other cars were going the same speed I was. But that doesn't matter, because those other cars didn't get pulled over, I did. So I get the ticket. I get in trouble for breaking the law.
I take it you don't drive? You can also get a ticket for going too slowly. You aren't speeding...so how does that work?
If all the traffic is moving at 40kmh in a 60kmh zone and you attempt to drive at 60 (causing an accident) you are not at fault, right?
Please don't bring silly arguments in here or I will be forced to look up "Fallacy" in Wiki.
How do we know that the banned user's behaviour is normal in that environment, besides taking his word for it? You're right that if the banned user can prove that he was singled-out, that he is the only one who has gotten in trouble for this specific violation, then his case may hold up in court. But I highly doubt he can provide such proof.
YouTube?
Sony, on the other hand, would be able to prove this. All Sony would have to do is pull up all of the people who have been banned, and provide the reason for the ban.
Also, by your logic, if only one person gets in trouble for hacking, and noone else in the game has ever hacked or has never been caught hacking, then this hacker shouldn't get in trouble? I'm pretty sure it's against almost every EULA or TOS for every online game that hacks are unnacceptable, the same as name-calling and slander are unnacceptable.
Separate issue. Interesting - but for another thread. Don't make make me reach for Wiki.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Sorry, backing out of this one before I say something I'll regret. Have a blessed day and <vulgarity> off.
edit: vulgarity
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
Incidently, I never said they shouldn't ban him (read back) just that he raised a valid point that they shouldn't keep his money.
You have a nice day too. Compliments to you as well.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Sorry been a long day and needed to step back from the comp for a second there.
Anyway, considering you used the metric system in your example, that tells me we are not from the same place. Laws may be different in your neck of the woods, but speeding is speeding.
In the states, the cops are more than willing to hand out tickets. Speeding is a big one here, people will get pulled over and ticketed for even going a couple miles over the limit. The other day I got pulled over for going 53 in a 50. Fortunately the cop was nice enough not to ticket me, but others out there aren't as fortunate.
Basically it's a slap on the wrist here. They give you a ticket, you take the ticket to the court house and can either dispute the claim in court, or you can pay a fee and have the ticket dropped from your record (I've gone through this process twice in the past ~10 years since I got my license).
Now, as far as driving too slow. Some areas (for instance the highways in Minnesota) there will be a minimum and a maximum speed limit. Here the minimum is usually 40 MPH, and the max around 70 - 75 MPH. If you don't drive between 40 and 75 MPH, you get a ticket. Then on other roads (residential, county roads, etc) there will be a single speed limit (usually 30 MPH on residential roads). If you don't drive the speed that the sign tells you to drive, then you get a ticket.
I guess the most important aspect of my "speeding" example is that sometimes laws and rules are put into place for the safety and protection of others. If someone breaks the rules, then they could be considered a risk or a threat to the well being of others. That's all.
Have a good one.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
Is one more idiot in the world really newsworthy? Anyone that believes that the term "right to free speech" is a law in itself is suffering from extreme ignorance. Read the 1st amendment then try to understand that it says nothing about what sony may or may not do.
Seriously Wiki for your legal answer?? You''ve GOT to be kidding.
See that word there?
Laws
An EULA is not Law. It is a contract of some type. It does not replace or override the LAW.
That is where your whole "If you are speeding..." example falls flat.
Law > Contract.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Seriously Wiki for your legal answer?? You''ve GOT to be kidding.
Another one who doesn't read well?
I was referring to this: FALLACY (A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion.)
As for using Wiki as a source of info? All knowledge has to come from somewhere. I wouldn't use Wiki in court without doing additional research - but it's fine for a brief explanation on a forum where you don't want to have to re-invent the wheel.
For example - if I was talking to someone and they didn't know what a Luddite was... you could post a wiki link.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
stuff like this realy shows what kind of retards there are in life i hope he loses all his money and fails big time
Maybe. You can forfiet any right to a refund do to failure to comply with the terms of a contract. Usually for small sums and reasonable ciircumstances, such as the customer being a complete fuckwit, it's legally allowed.
Maybe. But that is for a court to decide.
So someone should really take the matter to court... oh... yeah.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.