And to the internet lawyer that heard from a guy who heard from a guy who made it up....
Yes EULA and CoC are legally binding, have a nice day and don't believe everything you ever hear from the guy who pulls crap out of his ass.
No they are not.
The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.
Funny, I was gonna quote the same thing to disprove you.
The fact that courts have ruled in favour of EULA/ToS means that they are considered binding contracts. The disagreement is about which provisions and terms are enforceable or not. If the EULA/ToS was not considered a legal contract at all by the courts those issues would be moot and would not be ruled on.
What don't you understand about "NO Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"?
They have ruled in favour and againts EULA/ToS. So instead of going on the general EULA they go by the provisions and terms.
Until a court rules them legal they are not considered legal.
The reason why shrinkwrap licenses have been settled both ways is because of how those specifically work. Most aren't accessible until you've paid for and opened the product.
I haven't checked every MMO site, but most of them have the EULA and CoC freely accessible to anyone who goes to the site. They make sure you've agreed to it when you go to log in, but you have access to the agreement before you decide to purchase the product. Also most of the agreements that fall under that heading don't have any form of "I agree" that you ever click, sign or use. Where as the MMOs have the I have read and agree to the terms of this agreement button that you have to use to log in.
Good luck fighting one in court, and we'll see this shmucks lawsuits go no where just like his first one.
The reason why shrinkwrap licenses have been settled both ways is because of how those specifically work. Most aren't accessible until you've paid for and opened the product.
I haven't checked every MMO site, but most of them have the EULA and CoC freely accessible to anyone who goes to the site. They make sure you've agreed to it when you go to log in, but you have access to the agreement before you decide to purchase the product. Also most of the agreements that fall under that heading don't have any form of "I agree" that you ever click, sign or use. Where as the MMOs have the I have read and agree to the terms of this agreement button that you have to use to log in.
Good luck fighting one in court, and we'll see this shmucks lawsuits go no where just like his first one.
In Commonweath countries this sort of contract is called a "Ticket Case" (named because often tickets will have contract terms written on them which you can only see after you buy the ticket).
The whole area is a legal minefield.
An MMO Company attempting to use an EULA/ToS in court in a Commonweath country (and probably many EU countries too) would be just asking for trouble.
Also - clicking [I AGREE] has been found not to be an agreement in Australia - buty that could still be challenged further.
As for the validity of the EULA in general... no court will ever support an EULA in its entirety.
A court will look at the specific terms that are relevent to the case and rule on those only.
So, they might look at the clause that says Sony may ban you for any reason and say "Yes. Fair enough."
Then they might look at the next clause that says "without recourse" and say "No. Totally unjustified."
Beyond the monetary complaints, the suit also references the 2001 suicide of an EverQuest player, attributing it to a sense of alienation related to the game and mental health problems. The suit goes on to say the plaintiff has suffered from similar problems including major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and Crohn's disease, and he "doesn't want to end up like [the EverQuest player] did as he relies on video games heavily for the little ongoing happiness he can achieve in this life, via the gaming medium.
I don't even know what to say, seriously this is just pathetic. As for the EverQuest player you can't get Crohn's from a game -.- I have it and its genetic. Sure the stress from the game may have triggered it but he already would have had it to begin with, there is no way a game can possibly give you that disease. I'm really starting to wonder if people actually use there brain anymore. It's pathetic but also funny.
This individual needs to be made an example of to prove that people will be chastised if they attemp to make a mockery of a judicial system.
They should first ban him from filing a lawsuit against a games company ever again, without express permission granted from the courts. He should also be sent for medical and psycological examination to see whether he is a danger to himself or others (after all it seems that he is a depressive, the level of which is unknown).
Furthermore, Blizzard and all the other companies he has attempted to extort money from should be allowed exceptional circumstances in which to obtain his account details and IP address from his ISP and then ban his ass. Let him go "pursue happiness" elsewhere.
Next he'll be sueing the manufacturers of DIY tools because he used a hammer to put a picture up (to provide him with happiness), but he hit his thumb and that caused him great distress.
Comments
No they are not.
The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.
Funny, I was gonna quote the same thing to disprove you.
The fact that courts have ruled in favour of EULA/ToS means that they are considered binding contracts. The disagreement is about which provisions and terms are enforceable or not. If the EULA/ToS was not considered a legal contract at all by the courts those issues would be moot and would not be ruled on.
What don't you understand about "NO Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"?
They have ruled in favour and againts EULA/ToS. So instead of going on the general EULA they go by the provisions and terms.
Until a court rules them legal they are not considered legal.
The reason why shrinkwrap licenses have been settled both ways is because of how those specifically work. Most aren't accessible until you've paid for and opened the product.
I haven't checked every MMO site, but most of them have the EULA and CoC freely accessible to anyone who goes to the site. They make sure you've agreed to it when you go to log in, but you have access to the agreement before you decide to purchase the product. Also most of the agreements that fall under that heading don't have any form of "I agree" that you ever click, sign or use. Where as the MMOs have the I have read and agree to the terms of this agreement button that you have to use to log in.
Good luck fighting one in court, and we'll see this shmucks lawsuits go no where just like his first one.
In Commonweath countries this sort of contract is called a "Ticket Case" (named because often tickets will have contract terms written on them which you can only see after you buy the ticket).
The whole area is a legal minefield.
An MMO Company attempting to use an EULA/ToS in court in a Commonweath country (and probably many EU countries too) would be just asking for trouble.
Also - clicking [I AGREE] has been found not to be an agreement in Australia - buty that could still be challenged further.
As for the validity of the EULA in general... no court will ever support an EULA in its entirety.
A court will look at the specific terms that are relevent to the case and rule on those only.
So, they might look at the clause that says Sony may ban you for any reason and say "Yes. Fair enough."
Then they might look at the next clause that says "without recourse" and say "No. Totally unjustified."
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
HAHAHAHAHA thats Great a few jerk off's to destroy it all soon mmorpgs wont wanna make any more games because of the Sue ban.
I don't even know what to say, seriously this is just pathetic. As for the EverQuest player you can't get Crohn's from a game -.- I have it and its genetic. Sure the stress from the game may have triggered it but he already would have had it to begin with, there is no way a game can possibly give you that disease. I'm really starting to wonder if people actually use there brain anymore. It's pathetic but also funny.
Pretty much....that says it all.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Haha, this guy and I have similiar tastes in girls and music....except for the crazyiness lol
But besides that, what do you all think of his complaint and subpoenas?
They can be found here www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96345-Agoraphobe-Sues-Activision-Over-Hurtful-World-of-Warcraft at the bottom of the page.
What parts of his complaint do you agree or disagree with? Just curious....
This individual needs to be made an example of to prove that people will be chastised if they attemp to make a mockery of a judicial system.
They should first ban him from filing a lawsuit against a games company ever again, without express permission granted from the courts. He should also be sent for medical and psycological examination to see whether he is a danger to himself or others (after all it seems that he is a depressive, the level of which is unknown).
Furthermore, Blizzard and all the other companies he has attempted to extort money from should be allowed exceptional circumstances in which to obtain his account details and IP address from his ISP and then ban his ass. Let him go "pursue happiness" elsewhere.
Next he'll be sueing the manufacturers of DIY tools because he used a hammer to put a picture up (to provide him with happiness), but he hit his thumb and that caused him great distress.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's