Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
SOE to attempt policing all your online activities.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
This thread sounds a lot like 'EA winning the worst company award' but still have multi-million sales every year.
'Yeah! we won't buy your products Company X!'
Company X sells millions of copies.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
LOL they do not care about EULA / TOS because federal courts have ruled 3 times now that EULA / TOS have no legal grounds and no binding arbitration.
Basically they are worthless words put there as a suggestion only, the main purpose of them is to scare and or confuse the average uneducated gamer.
Doing a search indicates the opposite. This is the one that most specifically relates to videogames and software:
In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission.
This is factually false.
Federal courts have not issued a ruling on this matter although different circuits have.
7th Circuit deemed one case to be 'enforceable'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
True just saying someone is ugly is not illegal. I imagine if you persist it would fall under some sort of harassment. Hence the use of the word blathering; essentially "going on and on". Also, if they can prove that you have somehow damaged their reputation they could bring a civil case against you.
The latter example would be trespassing. That's why I used "lobby". You can't enter a company and start picketing and say you are exercising your freedom of expression. you can be removed. You can picket outside the company.
The point being is that there are limits on where you can say things and how you go about it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'm not sure why so many people think that their consumer rights are stronger than they actually are. I can only speak to the U.S. but consumer rights when it comes to digital content are a joke, but people seem to think the opposite. This is why steam can ban you and your thousands of dollars in digital games goes "poof." I know I would much rather have much stronger pro-consumer laws, but that just isn't the case.
I also found an interesting piece discussing software license jurisprudence in the U.S. (again for our non-U.S. readers, the EU has stronger "pro-consumer" laws).
The rationale underlying ProCD has also been extended to the electronic variation of the shrinkwrap -- the clickwrap. See DeJohn v. TV Corp. Int’l., 245 F.Supp.2d 913 (C.D. Ill. 2003) (holding that clickwrap agreement was enforceable and not an adhesion contract because user expressly indicated that he read, understood, and agreed to terms when he clicked box on Web site); see also Barnett v. Network Solutions, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 200, 203-04 (Ct of App. Tx 2001) ("by the very nature of the electronic format of the contract, [the plaintiff] had to scroll through that portion of the contract containing the forum selection clause before he accepted its terms…and that parties to a contract are not excused from the consequences resulting from failure to read the contract").
In fact, the rationale for enforcing clickwraps is even stronger than for enforcing shrinkwraps. The concern over unfair adhesion contract terms has been substantially reduced because clickwraps require an affirmative assent, not required in shrinkwraps, to the specific terms of the license. See Hughes v. McMenamon, 204 F.Supp.2d 178, 181 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding a clickwrap agreement with a forum selection clause to be valid and enforceable); see also I. Lan Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002) (clickwrap agreement was enforceable under the laws of the Uniform Commercial Code, because plaintiff explicitly accepted the clickwrap license agreement when it clicked the box stating "I agree"); see also Register.Com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F.Supp.2d 238 (S.D.N.Y 2000) (holding that even though user was not required to click on an icon indicating that it accepted terms, the submission of a query itself manifested assent to be bound by contract); see also Hotmail Corp. v. Van Money Pie, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10729, No. C98-20064, 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 1998) (in an action for preliminary injunction, the court found that an Internet provider was likely to succeed on breach of contract claim where defendants breached terms of "clickwrap" service agreement).
Clickwrap EULA's are those we are most familiar with in the mmo world, and according to the courts you are agreeing to a contract when you click "I accept the terms."
lol, I had a manager who pretty much said the same thing. And definitely agree with it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I generally tell those I'm supervising that the customer can say whatever they want about the company itself, but the second they make it personal with the employee the employee should feel free to ask the person to leave, and to call security if they don't. Under no circumstances does an employee need to be insulted. Some employees take it and move on, but they know they don't have to. (unless they are complaining about one of the employees in which case it should come directly to me)
uhh I must be missing something?
What is the problem here?
Bottom line, don't be a Douchebag and all will be fine.
I have no problem with SOE policing it's direct areas of social media,if only because you have to volunteer to link your games to your social media accounts...no one is forcing you to do so.
However the first time they try doing it outside their direct areas of influence monitoring your activities across all social media or worse your computer activity directly they won't have to worry about banning me I'll quit any Sony service I'm using and not touch another again.
At that stage it's not about my social conduct it's about my privacy.
No the box is pretty small on this one. If your a felon because you committed a crime in Oklahoma that's still going to be a problem for you in California when you try to get a job among other things.
So I support Sony in saying if I'm an asshole "we don't want you as a customer" and it doesn't matter where they find out I'm an asshole, whether its from public records or their data to begin with.
Indeed, but that right is not based on what someone says or does elsewhere. Nothing someone says in Sony's lobby is illegal, unless they are screaming obscenities. What Sony is claiming is they can ban you because you cursed in your OWN house. They can ban you for that, just like I can ban you from my house because I don't like the color of your shoes. Doesn't make it right, though.
But who decides what being a douchebag is? If I post that I don't approve of gay marriage, or that I DO approve of it, I might lose access to all Sony's games? All because some Sony rep was browsing Facebook and my political leanings don't line up with his? That way lies madness.
The only real issue with SOE's policies is extending the behavior they are looking at to areas outside their games and forums. The criteria for who gets a ban isn't going to change. However draconian they are with their own forums or their own games is what can be expected for behavior outside of the games.
There is no question about whether or not they have a right to do this. They do. They can terminate server at any time and for any reason. They can view any information that is available to the public on the interwebs. The only real question is whether or not this is a good business decision.
I am willing to bet that people getting banned for something outside of SOE's games or servers is going to be a rare occurrence, but when it does get used, it'll get used in extreme cases, and it will be publicized. Cases in the news where someone gets bullied or worse through a social network where any of the people who are accused happen to play an SOE game can expect to find their accounts banned permanently. Stuff like that. My thinking behind this is that policing all their players and all the social networks that their players happen to participate in would be prohibitively expensive. Checking into people who have already received attention would be much easier to do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But it's not your own house. It's twitter or a website or some place "out there".
they don't care about you being a dick in your own home. They do care if you are the type of person who goes out on the web and starts threatening people, harassing people and doing things that are illegal.
You seem to think that because you are sitting in the comfy chair you can extend your influence out on the net with no repercussions.
I want to see more companies do this.
I don't care what you do at home, I really don't. You want to watch depraved (yet consenting participants) movies/videos I say great. You want to do drugs, have orgies, write subversive poetry then the more power to you.
You start inflicting yourself on others then I have an issue with this.
I used the "lobby" example because "some" people think they can go wherever they want and say whatever they want. They do this on forums all the time and start crying their freedom of speech when in reality it's not their forum.
If they want a forum to say whatever they want they can make their own blog/website "whatever" and say what they want. I'll fight fortheir right to do it. But they shouldn't inflict themselves on others.
and when I say "yourself" and "you" in this context I'm talking about "those who do this" not saying that "you" in particular do this.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Personally, i think nothing's eaten as hot as it's cooked.
But if they indeed just "ban" people, in the way it's done these days (simply shutting doen the account), then they'll get themselves into trouble.
EULA's aren't as binding as they want you think they are, even moreso if they are as long as SOE's and even less so if they're containing clauses that basically say "you pay and we decide what we can or will deliver for that money" which leave such a "contract" simply null and void.
What's really bad is the usage of the "serious enough".
What defines "serious enough"?
WHO decides what is "serious enough"?
Are these "standards" communicated in advance, and how?
Can a customer take action AGAINST a ban, and how?
Not only are there serious legal implications, they're also - at least potentially - cutting their own flesh:
Do you really want to live or play in a cencored environment?
I mean, i am aware - we all should be since Snowden - that in fact we DO already live in such a environment, but is it healthy not only for free speech but also for "fun"?
The goal might be a noble one, the method chosen is more then questionable.
That is actually only half-true.No business has the right to restrict what i say in my free time and/or in matters that do not interfere with my duties to the business as such.
e.g. while McDonalds might get away with firing you for saying "Burger King's better" *IF* you do so while clearly on-duty, they cannot fire you for saying the same thing in your free time.
All they *can* do if you say "Burger King's better" *in* a McD. is ask you to leave the shop and never return.
(The "not wanting your business" part)
But they can not keep the burger you paid for simply because you said "Burger King's better", even if they ask you to leave and never return.
That burger has been sold, the transaction has been done, it's yours.
And the latter equals paying for an account and having it closed without a refund before the paid-for time is up.
Uh, no. Sovrath's freedom ends where other peoples' freedom begins. He doesn't own the lobby of that media company, so the media company can determine whether or not he can be there.
Indeed, but that right is not based on what someone says or does elsewhere. Nothing someone says in Sony's lobby is illegal, unless they are screaming obscenities. What Sony is claiming is they can ban you because you cursed in your OWN house. They can ban you for that, just like I can ban you from my house because I don't like the color of your shoes. Doesn't make it right, though.
That's not an accurate characterization of what they are doing. When someone puts something on Twitter, Facebook or any other social network, internet forum or even in comments on an article, they are putting things out into the public domain, visible to anyone. It doesn't matter where a person is sitting when they type the stuff in.
Sony isn't saying they are going to ban a person for something they say in their own house, but they have a right to do so. They are saying they will ban a person for their behavior out in public, which they also have a right to do.
How they exercise their right will determine whether or not it's a good business decision.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No business has the right to restrict what i say in my free time and/or in matters that do not interfere with my duties to the business as such.
e.g. while McDonalds might get away with firing you for saying "Burger King's better" *IF* you do so while clearly on-duty, they cannot fire you for saying the same thing in your free time.
All they *can* do if you say "Burger King's better" *in* a McD. is ask you to leave the shop and never return.
(The "not wanting your business" part)
But they can not keep the burger you paid for simply because you said "Burger King's better", even if they ask you to leave and never return.
That burger has been sold, the transaction has been done, it's yours.
And the latter equals paying for an account and having it closed without a refund before the paid-for time is up.
Businesses can take money and then refuse to serve a customer if that customer gives them a reason. Go to a movie, buy a ticket, then disrupt the movie for everyone else in the theater. You will be escorted out of the theater and you may or may not get your money back. If you had a right to the money, you would definitely get it back.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
They do have the authority to ban people from their services if they act inappropriately on those services.
On the other hand, it's none of their business (literally) to police what people do outside of their services, though it it's illegal, it can be argued they have a responsibility to forward it to the appropriate legal enforcement agency.
IANAL, however I do believe them punishing someone for something outside of their services, especially if it is legal, is in fact itself illegal. They are just begging for a discrimination & violating freedom of speech lawsuit.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
None of SOE's services are public services. They are private, and as such can be refused at any time for any reason. Well, as long as the reason is race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. If someone is a bully on Facebook, they can use that as a reason to disable that person's SOE account. They could disable that person's account for posting too many pictures of LoL cats on Cheezeburger.
The only limit on SOE doing these types of things are the publicity, good or bad, that they receive, and how that publicity affects their business.
**
Not. Is Not race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Good for SOE. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. I look at it as a person using social media services in the first place are the biggest liability to their own privacy. They have no one to blame but themselves especially if they are online asshats. Rather ironic I think.
Then comes a company wanting to clean their own community up a little, at the very east put those people on notice which have a history of online activity that SOE doesn't care for or want to be associated with. I hope they at least turn the heat up for awhile and do a mass ban as an example. I doubt they will ban that many people truthfully. This is just a "shot across the bow" most likely and nothing of substance will happen other than a few isolated cases, worst of the worst, getting banned. That said, imagine the amount of rage postings that would pop-up everywhere if they did do a mass ban.
Nail, meet Mr. Hammer!
Spot on.