"he suffers from agorophobia (fear of crowds), as well as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depression, and Crohn's Disease (an auto-immune disease that attacks the digestive tract)."
Is this the sort of guy you want in your realm, guild or group? I don’t get paid to be someone’s counsellor when I go online and clearly that’s what this guy needs….that and to get a life.
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.
Law > Contract.
Dude broke the rules. Simple as that. If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
I have been a rockclimbing instructor in the past and been involved in legal cases where climbers signed waivers but filed suit after injuries. The waiver isnt a magical paper that frees the other party from duty of care. There are many laws under many acts in a legal system, and some trump contracts and signed documents, its not a simple matter. Likewise I suspect just because you clicked a TOA button doesnt mean the game can ban based on what they like regardless of what it says. Like I said though, I have no idea about this specific case.
OMG! I feel like I am on a thread treadmill as folks rehash the same things over and over again. If the guy on the you tube vids is the same guy that has filed the complaint then he's got his work cut out for him. Also if it was him, and he was banned for his behavior for 30 days!!! and then files a law suit, the word "frivolous" comes to mind... Not knowing about about the whole PS3 network; is the $8.00 and change as seen on the phone call vid the money he is talking about or is this something else?
Below is off-topic somewhat.
I wish I could say that I was surprised by his actions... but I am not. I work in social welfare and I am an United States of American (don't want to confuse the "black and white" thinkers and "hairsplitters"). His actions are a testiment to how many, not all, youth in the USA negotiate conflict. They often have very little reagrd for others feelings, the anonymity of the internet, chat rooms, forums, etc, have fueled this disregard, as they lash out in offensive and abusive manners. I have seen a growing trend where youth in the USA often lack basic social skills, don't believe me go talk to people that educate them or employ them, among other things...
I have the pleasure of supervising a man from the Sudan and the other day I asked him what differences he has seen between African youth and those in the USA? I will paraphase his response, "...youth(USA) expect everything for nothing or very little, they don't expect to be held accountable for their actions, and if/when they are "called out" they often cry foul and our society(USA) supports this. African youth have very little and they have grown up knowing that if you want something you have to work for it." As I sat in my office listening to him - I had to agree, because it was true! Now is it the fault of the youth, in part maybe, but the true responsibility lies soundly at the feet of our society as a whole.
OMG! I feel like I am on a thread treadmill as folks rehash the same things over and over again. If the guy on the you tube vids is the same guy that has filed the complaint then he's got his work cut out for him. Also if it was him, and he was banned for his behavior for 30 days!!! and then files a law suit, the word "frivolous" comes to mind... Not knowing about about the whole PS3 network; is the $8.00 and change as seen on the phone call vid the money he is talking about or is this something else? Below is off-topic somewhat. I wish I could say that I was surprised by his actions... but I am not. I work in social welfare and I am an United States of American (don't want to confuse the "black and white" thinkers and "hairsplitters"). His actions are a testiment to how many, not all, youth in the USA negotiate conflict. They often have very little reagrd for others feelings, the anonymity of the internet, chat rooms, forums, etc, have fueled this disregard, as they lash out in offensive and abusive manners. I have seen a growing trend where youth in the USA often lack basic social skills, don't believe me go talk to people that educate them or employ them, among other things... I have the pleasure of supervising a man from the Sudan and the other day I asked him what differences he has seen between African youth and those in the USA? I will paraphase his response, "...youth(USA) expect everything for nothing or very little, they don't expect to be held accountable for their actions, and if/when they are "called out" they often cry foul and our society(USA) supports this. African youth have very little and they have grown up knowing that if you want something you have to work for it." As I sat in my office listening to him - I had to agree, because it was true! Now is it the fault of the youth, in part maybe, but the true responsibility lies soundly at the feet of our society as a whole. I for one as an USAacan am ashamed.
Hmmph....you're being a little over-generic about the youth on the internet. I am 17, yet I don't think I'm one of those flamers or trollers you seem to think the majority of youth in America are. Yes, the internet's anomymity has caused alot of disrespect among my age crowd, but think of it this way. No one knows who you really are most of the time on the internet. You may look at other's profiles to get a good idea, but what if they are lying? Of course, this is considering that the profile isn't completely neccessary (so in other words, no lying with the feds), but here on MMORPG, anyone can lie about that profile. That's the power of anonymity on the internet. You can release a completely different side of you. And sometimes, this so-called "internet personality" can be quite destructive.
Then, you get people like Erik Estavillo, who are complete retards and post videos on YouTube that only help benefit the company that he's filing a lawsuit against.
Then, you get people like Erik Estavillo, who are complete retards and post videos on YouTube that only help benefit the company that he's filing a lawsuit against.
Like I said myself. He's just going to get himself losing the case because of those videos. He said he was going to show those videos to the court wasn't he?
As we have all at one time or another pointed out to idiots proclaiming their "freedom of speech" has been denied on these forums, you have no constitutional right to free speech on private property, whether you be on a forum or in my living room when I kick your ass out for saying something I don't like. This moron needs to be counter-sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and should be demanded to pay all of Sony's court/attorney expanses ( can you imagine how much just ONE of their lawyers cost, not to mention the twenty or so they'll throw at this moron? ). Sony will own his great-great-grandchildren's paychecks. lol
The issue isnt soe much for Freedom of Speech. Its where can you excersize your freedom. The internet isnt a private property, nothing posted online is private unless on a protected server data base. And even then that is questionable. Then when you tack on the fact that he was a paying customer for a game, that he was banned from, he would have to prove that he was not in any form violation of the player guidelines, rules, and regulations and whatever else Sony has you checkmark when you sign up for their forums. This is where his case has very little weight. But on the same token Sony doesnt have much in the way of a counter suit. It honestly should just be thrown out of court.
The internet is truely no-mans-land. If you think you can get something out of some company for something you dont like. Try getting it. Not going to happen.
As we have all at one time or another pointed out to idiots proclaiming their "freedom of speech" has been denied on these forums, you have no constitutional right to free speech on private property, whether you be on a forum or in my living room when I kick your ass out for saying something I don't like. This moron needs to be counter-sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and should be demanded to pay all of Sony's court/attorney expanses ( can you imagine how much just ONE of their lawyers cost, not to mention the twenty or so they'll throw at this moron? ). Sony will own his great-great-grandchildren's paychecks. lol
The issue isnt soe much for Freedom of Speech. Its where can you excersize your freedom. The internet isnt a private property, nothing posted online is private unless on a protected server data base. And even then that is questionable. Then when you tack on the fact that he was a paying customer for a game, that he was banned from, he would have to prove that he was not in any form violation of the player guidelines, rules, and regulations and whatever else Sony has you checkmark when you sign up for their forums. This is where his case has very little weight. But on the same token Sony doesnt have much in the way of a counter suit. It honestly should just be thrown out of court.
The internet is truely no-mans-land. If you think you can get something out of some company for something you dont like. Try getting it. Not going to happen.
A highway is public. Does that mean the cars on it belong to the public and not the private parties driving them?
The internet is the same. The "information superhighway" may be public, but the cars (private businesses) on it are not.
As i said before, if he was able to post on the forums and whatever freely, AT WILL, without any sort of requirements, then he could claim it was public. The fact he was required to make an account in order to post/rant/chat/whatever means he was NOT posting/ranting/chatting/whatever on public property. He was on private property, and he broke the rules of those who own that property.
Ok, I think I found it. If this is the incident, and if this is Erik and for real, I can see why he got banned. He's not agoraphobic, he's freaking crazy. Ok, I watched it all the way through and it appears Erik was kicked out of Resistance twice by a mod. Erik then threw a tantrum and purposely antagonized the other gamers and mods as he filmed it on YouTube so he would be kicked again. What a douchebag asshole
Thanks for that.
Now here's a thought: What if Sony banned everyone who was "freaking crazy" and / or a "douchbag asshole" from their games?
What if MMORPG.com did?
All he has to do is show that he is not the only person using that sort of language in game and the whole 'bad language' thing goes right out the window.
Is calling someone a "pussy" worse than calling someone a "n00b"?
Also, he might actually have a clue.
Listen to what he says about 'Private' and 'Public'?
What he is referring to is 'public space'. Private land can still be a 'public' space. For example, a University Campus can be considered a public space. It could come down to how they screen people who enter that 'space'.
It depends on the law where he lives.
The fact he was allowed to log on and play for any amount of time also doesn't help Sony's case.
I will be interested to see how this goes.
The only 2 exceptions to private property being ruled public are:
Shopping centers/malls
Company owned towns
Even on the shopping center/mall issue the only cases that were ruled in favor of them being treated as public space was in cases of political speech. There was a case of some union picketing being allowed, but years later the Supreme Court reversed it's decision on that ruling as well.
.
In fact, over the years since they had made some initial rulings back in the 60s of some centers/malls being treated as public, rather than private property; they have back-tracked on a number of them, and it hasn't really been challenged again since.
On your example of College Campuses being considered public space... I have not seen a Supreme Court ruling where that has been the case. Of course if it is a state-run, owned college... then you are correct.
But for privately owned colleges, such as say, Notre Dame... they are able to restrict what they will allow to be said on their campus. If you disagree with that, then you are free to leave. They do not have to allow picketing, or any other type of "Free Speech" on their property. Much the same as every other private property.
Which is why there are certain guidelines that cities and states setup at certain "hot-spot" areas such as Abortion Clinics, or places that do testing on animals. These places attract a lot of people that like to picket and do other activities that are within their right to do... on public property. The picketing and such has to take place on the side-walk, or some other non-obstructive site that is owned by the public.
Anyway, just adding in some info that I had on the subject, as this is a particular topic that interests me.
Edit: As an aside here is a link where a part of a EULA was challenged and deemed to be non-enforceable. I have yet to find an example of an entire EULA being thrown out though. If anything just the clause or phrase that is unacceptable is thrown out.
I wish I could say that I was surprised by his actions... but I am not. I work in social welfare and I am an United States of American (don't want to confuse the "black and white" thinkers and "hairsplitters"). His actions are a testiment to how many, not all, youth in the USA negotiate conflict. They often have very little reagrd for others feelings, the anonymity of the internet, chat rooms, forums, etc, have fueled this disregard, as they lash out in offensive and abusive manners. I have seen a growing trend where youth in the USA often lack basic social skills, don't believe me go talk to people that educate them or employ them, among other things... I have the pleasure of supervising a man from the Sudan and the other day I asked him what differences he has seen between African youth and those in the USA? I will paraphase his response, "...youth(USA) expect everything for nothing or very little, they don't expect to be held accountable for their actions, and if/when they are "called out" they often cry foul and our society(USA) supports this. African youth have very little and they have grown up knowing that if you want something you have to work for it." As I sat in my office listening to him - I had to agree, because it was true! Now is it the fault of the youth, in part maybe, but the true responsibility lies soundly at the feet of our society as a whole. I for one as an USAacan am ashamed.
Hmmph....you're being a little over-generic about the youth on the internet. I am 17, yet I don't think I'm one of those flamers or trollers you seem to think the majority of youth in America are. Yes, the internet's anomymity has caused alot of disrespect among my age crowd, but think of it this way. No one knows who you really are most of the time on the internet. You may look at other's profiles to get a good idea, but what if they are lying? Of course, this is considering that the profile isn't completely neccessary (so in other words, no lying with the feds), but here on MMORPG, anyone can lie about that profile. That's the power of anonymity on the internet. You can release a completely different side of you. And sometimes, this so-called "internet personality" can be quite destructive.
Then, you get people like Erik Estavillo, who are complete retards and post videos on YouTube that only help benefit the company that he's filing a lawsuit against.
I was purposely general in my post and I agree that it does not apply to all youth, I spoke of trends that do exsist and to highlight preceptions that others have; whether we want to accept them or not. And as I said the a youth's sense of anonymity, has created situations where even "good" youth act in very distrubing and anti-social manner.
I would contend that Erik's situation is an an extreme example, as are other "you tubish" style videos of assaults, robberies, vandalism, etc being proudly posted by young adults; and thankfully not the norm, yet.
But while I feel that this discussion is connected to the topic of this thread I don't want to hijack the intended discussion of the OP.
There are only really two issues with this guy. The first is whether or not his actions were indeed in violation of the terms of service. The article does not specify, but I'll go out on a limb and say he probably did violate the terms of service.
The second issue is if this guy did in fact violate the terms of service, then was his banning in keeping with the norm of punative action taken by SONY against people who break the terms of service in a similar fashion as this fellow did. Other things can factor into the punative action such as prior violations of the terms of service, but in general the terms of service and the punishments for breaking them have to be applied consitently across the board. Again I will go out on a limb and say SONY is probably pretty consistent with these things. These big corportations have teams of lawyers that ensure they are legally protected at all times.
Aside from those two things there really isn't much else here. If SONY's action meet both of these two standards then this guy hasn't got a leg to stand on. There is absolutely no issue of freedom of speech here. Those freedoms do not apply when you are dealing with a private entity.
Now should this man be repayed for unused SONY points? Sure that would be the nice thing for SONY to do. Just because SONY might be a legal position to keep this guy's money doesn't mean they should. Doing the right thing is not always the exact same thing as doing the legal thing. I would give him back the money for the unused points.
The only game that SOE hasn't downright ruined is PlanetSide, but that's because they saw it was already a good MMO when bought and decided to keep it like that. Problem? PlanetSide, an excellent game, is declining.
So, down with SOE. It is a corrupt company bent on money, not on users. Let them fall, and new games, better, will arise.
The only game that SOE hasn't downright ruined is PlanetSide, but that's because they saw it was already a good MMO when bought and decided to keep it like that. Problem? PlanetSide, an excellent game, is declining. So, down with SOE. It is a corrupt company bent on money, not on users. Let them fall, and new games, better, will arise.
So you do not care who is right or wrong in this case as long as Sony gets punished?
A highway is public. Does that mean the cars on it belong to the public and not the private parties driving them?
The internet is the same. The "information superhighway" may be public, but the cars (private businesses) on it are not.
As i said before, if he was able to post on the forums and whatever freely, AT WILL, without any sort of requirements, then he could claim it was public. The fact he was required to make an account in order to post/rant/chat/whatever means he was NOT posting/ranting/chatting/whatever on public property. He was on private property, and he broke the rules of those who own that property.
The problem is that the internet, a US Military invention, isnt a US owned institution. And thus, does not fall completely under US laws and regulations. So to come closer to a analogy of what your trying, would be the Atlantic or even Pacific Oceans, once you in international waters, no one country can impose its laws or regulations on you. The internet is those INTERNATIONAL waters so to speak. It is not the US's place to impose laws or regulations on it. But seeing as it is not a tangable object either, I doubt the UN would step up and come up with a law enforcing group to deal with it.
The highways are state owned, interstates are federal. Not public owned.
The only thing Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) can claim is that they are a buisness and have the right to deny service to anyone they choose.
The internet is a tricky place, that falls in a grey area between laws, and rules. It is truely no-mans-land.
I could see it if he was suing for a refund of the remainder of his monthly fee. But a company has the right to refuse service for any reason at all as long as it is not discriminating on the basis of certain specific characteristics as race and etc.
The only game that SOE hasn't downright ruined is PlanetSide, but that's because they saw it was already a good MMO when bought and decided to keep it like that. Problem? PlanetSide, an excellent game, is declining. So, down with SOE. It is a corrupt company bent on money, not on users. Let them fall, and new games, better, will arise.
So you do not care who is right or wrong in this case as long as Sony gets punished?
I'm pretty sure that this person is going to lose the case, but Sony does deserve to get punished by the player community. FreeRealms was a desperate gambit to make more funds on an economically dwindling Sony Online Entertainment, whom was pouring too much of it's funds into development of Playstation HOME.
A highway is public. Does that mean the cars on it belong to the public and not the private parties driving them?
The internet is the same. The "information superhighway" may be public, but the cars (private businesses) on it are not.
As i said before, if he was able to post on the forums and whatever freely, AT WILL, without any sort of requirements, then he could claim it was public. The fact he was required to make an account in order to post/rant/chat/whatever means he was NOT posting/ranting/chatting/whatever on public property. He was on private property, and he broke the rules of those who own that property.
The problem is that the internet, a US Military invention, isnt a US owned institution. And thus, does not fall completely under US laws and regulations. So to come closer to a analogy of what your trying, would be the Atlantic or even Pacific Oceans, once you in international waters, no one country can impose its laws or regulations on you. The internet is those INTERNATIONAL waters so to speak. It is not the US's place to impose laws or regulations on it. But seeing as it is not a tangable object either, I doubt the UN would step up and come up with a law enforcing group to deal with it.
The highways are state owned, interstates are federal. Not public owned.
The only thing Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) can claim is that they are a buisness and have the right to deny service to anyone they choose.
The internet is a tricky place, that falls in a grey area between laws, and rules. It is truely no-mans-land.
Actually the initial version of the Internet, the "ARPAnet" was used by independant AND military scientists all over the U.S..
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.
Law > Contract.
Contract > Tort > Law. You fail at internet lawyering
Just a hypothetical seeing as how so many seem to have used the analogy, 'if you're in my house and you say something I don't like your outta here'.
What if you charge me to enter your house under the preconception that we are going to have a discussion.
Now for the sake of arguement I successfully argue against that the EULA you had me complete, online beforehand, it's ruled the contract is null and void.
Now you basically kick me out of your house without returning my money for saying 'cheese' which displeased you.
No-one feels I have a case here? Now I'll openly admit I'm the kind of person that will argue the sky is green and the grass is blue but I think there's a chance tbh.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Just a hypothetical seeing as how so many seem to have used the analogy, 'if you're in my house and you say something I don't like your outta here'. What if you charge me to enter your house under the preconception that we are going to have a discussion. Now for the sake of arguement I successfully argue against that the EULA you had me complete, online beforehand, it's ruled the contract is null and void. Now you basically kick me out of your house without returning my money for saying 'cheese' which displeased you. No-one feels I have a case here? Now I'll openly admit I'm the kind of person that will argue the sky is green and the grass is blue but I think there's a chance tbh.
Let's say you ask to come over to watch the game and I tell sure, as long as you bring the beer.
Then, while the group of us is watching the game and drinking the beer you brought over, you get the urge to tell me my ol' lady is a whore.
Now granted, in this scenario there would likely be a bit more than just telling you to leave, but for the sake of argument we'll say that's all I do. i make you leave.
What do you think your chances of winning a suit against me for the beer are?
I'd say you got a better chance of being hit by lightning really. Personally I won't even TOUCH the box of a sony product, it makes my skin feel unclean.
Let them know how you feel by never buying another one of their products again, those that do are legion and eventually Sony won't have a leg to stand on when they anger all of their customers to the point they won't but their products.
Comments
"he suffers from agorophobia (fear of crowds), as well as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depression, and Crohn's Disease (an auto-immune disease that attacks the digestive tract)."
Is this the sort of guy you want in your realm, guild or group? I don’t get paid to be someone’s counsellor when I go online and clearly that’s what this guy needs….that and to get a life.
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.
Dude broke the rules. Simple as that. If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
I'm no expert, but some perspective:
I have been a rockclimbing instructor in the past and been involved in legal cases where climbers signed waivers but filed suit after injuries. The waiver isnt a magical paper that frees the other party from duty of care. There are many laws under many acts in a legal system, and some trump contracts and signed documents, its not a simple matter. Likewise I suspect just because you clicked a TOA button doesnt mean the game can ban based on what they like regardless of what it says. Like I said though, I have no idea about this specific case.
OMG! I feel like I am on a thread treadmill as folks rehash the same things over and over again. If the guy on the you tube vids is the same guy that has filed the complaint then he's got his work cut out for him. Also if it was him, and he was banned for his behavior for 30 days!!! and then files a law suit, the word "frivolous" comes to mind... Not knowing about about the whole PS3 network; is the $8.00 and change as seen on the phone call vid the money he is talking about or is this something else?
Below is off-topic somewhat.
I wish I could say that I was surprised by his actions... but I am not. I work in social welfare and I am an United States of American (don't want to confuse the "black and white" thinkers and "hairsplitters"). His actions are a testiment to how many, not all, youth in the USA negotiate conflict. They often have very little reagrd for others feelings, the anonymity of the internet, chat rooms, forums, etc, have fueled this disregard, as they lash out in offensive and abusive manners. I have seen a growing trend where youth in the USA often lack basic social skills, don't believe me go talk to people that educate them or employ them, among other things...
I have the pleasure of supervising a man from the Sudan and the other day I asked him what differences he has seen between African youth and those in the USA? I will paraphase his response, "...youth(USA) expect everything for nothing or very little, they don't expect to be held accountable for their actions, and if/when they are "called out" they often cry foul and our society(USA) supports this. African youth have very little and they have grown up knowing that if you want something you have to work for it." As I sat in my office listening to him - I had to agree, because it was true! Now is it the fault of the youth, in part maybe, but the true responsibility lies soundly at the feet of our society as a whole.
I for one as an USAacan am ashamed.
Hmmph....you're being a little over-generic about the youth on the internet. I am 17, yet I don't think I'm one of those flamers or trollers you seem to think the majority of youth in America are. Yes, the internet's anomymity has caused alot of disrespect among my age crowd, but think of it this way. No one knows who you really are most of the time on the internet. You may look at other's profiles to get a good idea, but what if they are lying? Of course, this is considering that the profile isn't completely neccessary (so in other words, no lying with the feds), but here on MMORPG, anyone can lie about that profile. That's the power of anonymity on the internet. You can release a completely different side of you. And sometimes, this so-called "internet personality" can be quite destructive.
Then, you get people like Erik Estavillo, who are complete retards and post videos on YouTube that only help benefit the company that he's filing a lawsuit against.
Like I said myself. He's just going to get himself losing the case because of those videos. He said he was going to show those videos to the court wasn't he?
The issue isnt soe much for Freedom of Speech. Its where can you excersize your freedom. The internet isnt a private property, nothing posted online is private unless on a protected server data base. And even then that is questionable. Then when you tack on the fact that he was a paying customer for a game, that he was banned from, he would have to prove that he was not in any form violation of the player guidelines, rules, and regulations and whatever else Sony has you checkmark when you sign up for their forums. This is where his case has very little weight. But on the same token Sony doesnt have much in the way of a counter suit. It honestly should just be thrown out of court.
The internet is truely no-mans-land. If you think you can get something out of some company for something you dont like. Try getting it. Not going to happen.
So much crap, so little quality.
The issue isnt soe much for Freedom of Speech. Its where can you excersize your freedom. The internet isnt a private property, nothing posted online is private unless on a protected server data base. And even then that is questionable. Then when you tack on the fact that he was a paying customer for a game, that he was banned from, he would have to prove that he was not in any form violation of the player guidelines, rules, and regulations and whatever else Sony has you checkmark when you sign up for their forums. This is where his case has very little weight. But on the same token Sony doesnt have much in the way of a counter suit. It honestly should just be thrown out of court.
The internet is truely no-mans-land. If you think you can get something out of some company for something you dont like. Try getting it. Not going to happen.
A highway is public. Does that mean the cars on it belong to the public and not the private parties driving them?
The internet is the same. The "information superhighway" may be public, but the cars (private businesses) on it are not.
As i said before, if he was able to post on the forums and whatever freely, AT WILL, without any sort of requirements, then he could claim it was public. The fact he was required to make an account in order to post/rant/chat/whatever means he was NOT posting/ranting/chatting/whatever on public property. He was on private property, and he broke the rules of those who own that property.
Thanks for that.
Now here's a thought: What if Sony banned everyone who was "freaking crazy" and / or a "douchbag asshole" from their games?
What if MMORPG.com did?
All he has to do is show that he is not the only person using that sort of language in game and the whole 'bad language' thing goes right out the window.
Is calling someone a "pussy" worse than calling someone a "n00b"?
Also, he might actually have a clue.
Listen to what he says about 'Private' and 'Public'?
What he is referring to is 'public space'. Private land can still be a 'public' space. For example, a University Campus can be considered a public space. It could come down to how they screen people who enter that 'space'.
It depends on the law where he lives.
The fact he was allowed to log on and play for any amount of time also doesn't help Sony's case.
I will be interested to see how this goes.
The only 2 exceptions to private property being ruled public are:
Shopping centers/malls
Company owned towns
Even on the shopping center/mall issue the only cases that were ruled in favor of them being treated as public space was in cases of political speech. There was a case of some union picketing being allowed, but years later the Supreme Court reversed it's decision on that ruling as well.
.
In fact, over the years since they had made some initial rulings back in the 60s of some centers/malls being treated as public, rather than private property; they have back-tracked on a number of them, and it hasn't really been challenged again since.
On your example of College Campuses being considered public space... I have not seen a Supreme Court ruling where that has been the case. Of course if it is a state-run, owned college... then you are correct.
But for privately owned colleges, such as say, Notre Dame... they are able to restrict what they will allow to be said on their campus. If you disagree with that, then you are free to leave. They do not have to allow picketing, or any other type of "Free Speech" on their property. Much the same as every other private property.
Which is why there are certain guidelines that cities and states setup at certain "hot-spot" areas such as Abortion Clinics, or places that do testing on animals. These places attract a lot of people that like to picket and do other activities that are within their right to do... on public property. The picketing and such has to take place on the side-walk, or some other non-obstructive site that is owned by the public.
Anyway, just adding in some info that I had on the subject, as this is a particular topic that interests me.
Edit: As an aside here is a link where a part of a EULA was challenged and deemed to be non-enforceable. I have yet to find an example of an entire EULA being thrown out though. If anything just the clause or phrase that is unacceptable is thrown out.
news.cnet.com/Court-Network-Associates-cant-gag-users/2100-1023_3-981228.html
Edit2: Another very good read on this particular subject:
www.thelegality.com/archives/58
This still going on?
Wait for the results! :P
Hmmph....you're being a little over-generic about the youth on the internet. I am 17, yet I don't think I'm one of those flamers or trollers you seem to think the majority of youth in America are. Yes, the internet's anomymity has caused alot of disrespect among my age crowd, but think of it this way. No one knows who you really are most of the time on the internet. You may look at other's profiles to get a good idea, but what if they are lying? Of course, this is considering that the profile isn't completely neccessary (so in other words, no lying with the feds), but here on MMORPG, anyone can lie about that profile. That's the power of anonymity on the internet. You can release a completely different side of you. And sometimes, this so-called "internet personality" can be quite destructive.
Then, you get people like Erik Estavillo, who are complete retards and post videos on YouTube that only help benefit the company that he's filing a lawsuit against.
I was purposely general in my post and I agree that it does not apply to all youth, I spoke of trends that do exsist and to highlight preceptions that others have; whether we want to accept them or not. And as I said the a youth's sense of anonymity, has created situations where even "good" youth act in very distrubing and anti-social manner.
I would contend that Erik's situation is an an extreme example, as are other "you tubish" style videos of assaults, robberies, vandalism, etc being proudly posted by young adults; and thankfully not the norm, yet.
But while I feel that this discussion is connected to the topic of this thread I don't want to hijack the intended discussion of the OP.
There are only really two issues with this guy. The first is whether or not his actions were indeed in violation of the terms of service. The article does not specify, but I'll go out on a limb and say he probably did violate the terms of service.
The second issue is if this guy did in fact violate the terms of service, then was his banning in keeping with the norm of punative action taken by SONY against people who break the terms of service in a similar fashion as this fellow did. Other things can factor into the punative action such as prior violations of the terms of service, but in general the terms of service and the punishments for breaking them have to be applied consitently across the board. Again I will go out on a limb and say SONY is probably pretty consistent with these things. These big corportations have teams of lawyers that ensure they are legally protected at all times.
Aside from those two things there really isn't much else here. If SONY's action meet both of these two standards then this guy hasn't got a leg to stand on. There is absolutely no issue of freedom of speech here. Those freedoms do not apply when you are dealing with a private entity.
Now should this man be repayed for unused SONY points? Sure that would be the nice thing for SONY to do. Just because SONY might be a legal position to keep this guy's money doesn't mean they should. Doing the right thing is not always the exact same thing as doing the legal thing. I would give him back the money for the unused points.
The only game that SOE hasn't downright ruined is PlanetSide, but that's because they saw it was already a good MMO when bought and decided to keep it like that. Problem? PlanetSide, an excellent game, is declining.
So, down with SOE. It is a corrupt company bent on money, not on users. Let them fall, and new games, better, will arise.
So you do not care who is right or wrong in this case as long as Sony gets punished?
A highway is public. Does that mean the cars on it belong to the public and not the private parties driving them?
The internet is the same. The "information superhighway" may be public, but the cars (private businesses) on it are not.
As i said before, if he was able to post on the forums and whatever freely, AT WILL, without any sort of requirements, then he could claim it was public. The fact he was required to make an account in order to post/rant/chat/whatever means he was NOT posting/ranting/chatting/whatever on public property. He was on private property, and he broke the rules of those who own that property.
The problem is that the internet, a US Military invention, isnt a US owned institution. And thus, does not fall completely under US laws and regulations. So to come closer to a analogy of what your trying, would be the Atlantic or even Pacific Oceans, once you in international waters, no one country can impose its laws or regulations on you. The internet is those INTERNATIONAL waters so to speak. It is not the US's place to impose laws or regulations on it. But seeing as it is not a tangable object either, I doubt the UN would step up and come up with a law enforcing group to deal with it.
The highways are state owned, interstates are federal. Not public owned.
The only thing Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) can claim is that they are a buisness and have the right to deny service to anyone they choose.
The internet is a tricky place, that falls in a grey area between laws, and rules. It is truely no-mans-land.
So much crap, so little quality.
I could see it if he was suing for a refund of the remainder of his monthly fee. But a company has the right to refuse service for any reason at all as long as it is not discriminating on the basis of certain specific characteristics as race and etc.
So you do not care who is right or wrong in this case as long as Sony gets punished?
I'm pretty sure that this person is going to lose the case, but Sony does deserve to get punished by the player community. FreeRealms was a desperate gambit to make more funds on an economically dwindling Sony Online Entertainment, whom was pouring too much of it's funds into development of Playstation HOME.
A highway is public. Does that mean the cars on it belong to the public and not the private parties driving them?
The internet is the same. The "information superhighway" may be public, but the cars (private businesses) on it are not.
As i said before, if he was able to post on the forums and whatever freely, AT WILL, without any sort of requirements, then he could claim it was public. The fact he was required to make an account in order to post/rant/chat/whatever means he was NOT posting/ranting/chatting/whatever on public property. He was on private property, and he broke the rules of those who own that property.
The problem is that the internet, a US Military invention, isnt a US owned institution. And thus, does not fall completely under US laws and regulations. So to come closer to a analogy of what your trying, would be the Atlantic or even Pacific Oceans, once you in international waters, no one country can impose its laws or regulations on you. The internet is those INTERNATIONAL waters so to speak. It is not the US's place to impose laws or regulations on it. But seeing as it is not a tangable object either, I doubt the UN would step up and come up with a law enforcing group to deal with it.
The highways are state owned, interstates are federal. Not public owned.
The only thing Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) can claim is that they are a buisness and have the right to deny service to anyone they choose.
The internet is a tricky place, that falls in a grey area between laws, and rules. It is truely no-mans-land.
Actually the initial version of the Internet, the "ARPAnet" was used by independant AND military scientists all over the U.S..
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.
Contract > Tort > Law. You fail at internet lawyering
Hmm, shouldn't this case be thrown out by now?
90% of the time when a player sues a big company, it is usually an open-shut case, especially in MMORPG.
Have anyone ever won against a MMO company in the past? I really doubt it, but prove me wrong if you got the info.
Just a hypothetical seeing as how so many seem to have used the analogy, 'if you're in my house and you say something I don't like your outta here'.
What if you charge me to enter your house under the preconception that we are going to have a discussion.
Now for the sake of arguement I successfully argue against that the EULA you had me complete, online beforehand, it's ruled the contract is null and void.
Now you basically kick me out of your house without returning my money for saying 'cheese' which displeased you.
No-one feels I have a case here? Now I'll openly admit I'm the kind of person that will argue the sky is green and the grass is blue but I think there's a chance tbh.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Let's say you ask to come over to watch the game and I tell sure, as long as you bring the beer.
Then, while the group of us is watching the game and drinking the beer you brought over, you get the urge to tell me my ol' lady is a whore.
Now granted, in this scenario there would likely be a bit more than just telling you to leave, but for the sake of argument we'll say that's all I do. i make you leave.
What do you think your chances of winning a suit against me for the beer are?
I'd say you got a better chance of being hit by lightning really. Personally I won't even TOUCH the box of a sony product, it makes my skin feel unclean.
Let them know how you feel by never buying another one of their products again, those that do are legion and eventually Sony won't have a leg to stand on when they anger all of their customers to the point they won't but their products.
Is this really an issue of "free speech"? Is the ACLU involved?
This thread is teetering between on topic, and off topic.
Please keep your posts on topic.