It seems that most people are ready to accept whatever rules corporations push through when they offer us products.
I personally do not agree with this and see the fallacity of it all. Many rules are simply unreasonable, but most seem to accept them without any concerns to their rights as a customer. I do not personally have any axe to grind with corporations, but I do know how they operate. And with this knowledge, it is just impossible for me to make the leap of faith where I assume that they would think the best of their customers when they write non-negotiable rules. If you honestly believe they do, we will probably never agree on this topic and I just consider you very naive.
Legal issues surrounding the issue of EULA/TOSs etc., are very complex and it will takes years to create a better legal framework around them with test cases and research. Still most of these cases will have to be tackled case by case basis, so I just find it interesting that people mention that EULA/TOSs are somehow legally solid.
All that said, I do understand that many people have an axe to grind with guys like this. This is a personal bias, an emotional attachement that really got very little to do with the case itself. I never would play with a guy like this either and would be quick to ignore him, but that does not mean that he as a consumer has less rights than I do.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
my wife is a lawyer, so I hear about these kinds of things. every game makes you agree to a terms of use document, in which you agree that they can throw you out and stop taking your money at there discretion. much like I can throw someone out of my house if I chose because I own and control it. playing a MMORPG is not a right and is fully controlled by the people who spend the $$$$, so violate the terms and get banned.
hopefully SOE will let him file alot of paperwork then bury him in paper and when he loses counter sue for frivolous suit, and hammer him for a few million.
Tthe factors of money is involved.
RMT and the like as Sony loves to engage in puts them in tricky water. Do they compensate the players for time spent and the like "or station exchange" type things? Even if they proclaim the "items their property" this puts them into the a few realms which the case could be won.
After all EULA's are not COURT BINDING, More often than not they are jokes. With many loops holes and legal issues being pressed into them.
Some countries go as far as to say "The items if paid for are property of the player" denial of access to your property is grounds for court. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I could give two cares less about this guy, only that this is interesting. It could create the need for the supreme court to FINALLY rule on whether virtual property is yours or the companies. This could make it so Bans require such things as due compensation.
Sony could be opening a can of worms it does not WANT to do. This could in fact crush their RMT ways as if Virtual property is labeled as personal property (such as that razor you bought at the store) then you could in effect break the ways a comapny can ban you from their servers. Just as a company can't go "Hey we're recalling razors, no we won't compensate you" after the razor turns out to be infected with some mutagenic T virus or whatever.
my wife is a lawyer, so I hear about these kinds of things. every game makes you agree to a terms of use document, in which you agree that they can throw you out and stop taking your money at there discretion. much like I can throw someone out of my house if I chose because I own and control it. playing a MMORPG is not a right and is fully controlled by the people who spend the $$$$, so violate the terms and get banned.
hopefully SOE will let him file alot of paperwork then bury him in paper and when he loses counter sue for frivolous suit, and hammer him for a few million.
Tthe factors of money is involved.
RMT and the like as Sony loves to engage in puts them in tricky water. Do they compensate the players for time spent and the like "or station exchange" type things? Even if they proclaim the "items their property" this puts them into the a few realms which the case could be won.
After all EULA's are not COURT BINDING, More often than not they are jokes. With many loops holes and legal issues being pressed into them.
Some countries go as far as to say "The items if paid for are property of the player" denial of access to your property is grounds for court. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I could give two cares less about this guy, only that this is interesting. It could create the need for the supreme court to FINALLY rule on whether virtual property is yours or the companies. This could make it so Bans require such things as due compensation.
Sony could be opening a can of worms it does not WANT to do. This could in fact crush their RMT ways as if Virtual property is labeled as personal property (such as that razor you bought at the store) then you could in effect break the ways a comapny can ban you from their servers. Just as a company can't go "Hey we're recalling razors, no we won't compensate you" after the razor turns out to be infected with some mutagenic T virus or whatever.
After all money is money.
Personally, I wouldn't care two bits if virtual property laws killed the profitblilty of RMT. I'd rather see companies forced to make real content for all users paying one equal fee than just making the cool stuff for the guys with shop cash.
The real stinker with making virtual property the customers actual property is that:
1. ) if a person quits, obviously they can't access "their" property, so are companies supposed to reimburse someone every time they quit for whatever piece of pixels they have on their toons?
2. ) If the game sucks and ends up going under, is the company going to have to reimburse the customers who did play the game for their lost pixels?
And these questions are not aimed at RMT games at all, but strictly toward "one set fee for all" like regular mmorpgs should be. Because if you make the virtual items bought through RMT the property of the customer/player, than ALL virtual property is the property of the customer/player. Those rocks you mined? Those willow branches you cut? Those carrots you harvested? That +10 sword of uberness you just got lucky and looted? All of those would have to have a real world value and be open to monetery reimbursement upon account interruption/removal.
If that happens, expect every mmo except for Second Life and Entropia to just cease to exist.
my wife is a lawyer, so I hear about these kinds of things. every game makes you agree to a terms of use document, in which you agree that they can throw you out and stop taking your money at there discretion. much like I can throw someone out of my house if I chose because I own and control it. playing a MMORPG is not a right and is fully controlled by the people who spend the $$$$, so violate the terms and get banned.
hopefully SOE will let him file alot of paperwork then bury him in paper and when he loses counter sue for frivolous suit, and hammer him for a few million.
Tthe factors of money is involved.
RMT and the like as Sony loves to engage in puts them in tricky water. Do they compensate the players for time spent and the like "or station exchange" type things? Even if they proclaim the "items their property" this puts them into the a few realms which the case could be won.
After all EULA's are not COURT BINDING, More often than not they are jokes. With many loops holes and legal issues being pressed into them.
Some countries go as far as to say "The items if paid for are property of the player" denial of access to your property is grounds for court. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I could give two cares less about this guy, only that this is interesting. It could create the need for the supreme court to FINALLY rule on whether virtual property is yours or the companies. This could make it so Bans require such things as due compensation.
Sony could be opening a can of worms it does not WANT to do. This could in fact crush their RMT ways as if Virtual property is labeled as personal property (such as that razor you bought at the store) then you could in effect break the ways a comapny can ban you from their servers. Just as a company can't go "Hey we're recalling razors, no we won't compensate you" after the razor turns out to be infected with some mutagenic T virus or whatever.
After all money is money.
Personally, I wouldn't care two bits if virtual property laws killed the profitblilty of RMT. I'd rather see companies forced to make real content for all users paying one equal fee than just making the cool stuff for the guys with shop cash.
The real stinker with making virtual property the customers actual property is that:
1. ) if a person quits, obviously they can't access "their" property, so are companies supposed to reimburse someone every time they quit for whatever piece of pixels they have on their toons?
2. ) If the game sucks and ends up going under, is the company going to have to reimburse the customers who did play the game for their lost pixels?
And these questions are not aimed at RMT games at all, but strictly toward "one set fee for all" like regular mmorpgs should be. Because if you make the virtual items bought through RMT the property of the customer/player, than ALL virtual property is the property of the customer/player. Those rocks you mined? Those willow branches you cut? Those carrots you harvested? That +10 sword of uberness you just got lucky and looted? All of those would have to have a real world value and be open to monetery reimbursement upon account interruption/removal.
If that happens, expect every mmo except for Second Life and Entropia to just cease to exist.
This is what makes it REALLY interesting. It has the potentiel to distrupt all we see with mmo's in general.
Maybe a bilaw to establish something along the lines of abandoned property or something to that extent. The same as it goes with real world. You leave a lawn mower on the side of the road for so much time, it eventually is not yours anymore.
This whole thing could just be a can of worms or a idle threat either way it really interests me in how it is going to shape up.
It's also funny the fact of me being dispassionate about this subject allows a more open mind on the subject. I honestly could care less on this subject except it's a pandora's box!
For the love of god I hope this guy loses and goes bankrupt from the court fees. That's right, I, me, am rooting for Sony. Crap like this is ridiculous. If people can't choose who they want and don't want on the forums and networks they control, this whole damn world is going to hell.
Man if he wins the Trolls everywhere will rise up and overthrow the Internet. There will be Muhuhahahas heard around the globe! Next you will be contacted with money about a class action lawsuit where you were a Troll in a thread and receieved a reward.
All defending Sony deserve every abuse from big companies.
All defending Sony knows that Sony is right in this matter, and that Erik Estavillo is a loony that really needs to stop posting videos on YouTube.
Even though I am a Sony fanboy, I defend Sony simply because I believe Erik is completely dead wrong on many of his so-called
"ideals." If he wins, there will be no stopping any trollers online. Perhaps you, Altailzq, should review the situation a little better, and realize that there's alot to lose here if Sony loses (trollers go rampant, more Erik-like people go unchecked, etc.).
The only thing that Erik might win is his money he couldn't get when he was banned (the chargeback), but that is debatable.
All defending Sony deserve every abuse from big companies.
All defending Sony knows that Sony is right in this matter, and that Erik Estavillo is a loony that really needs to stop posting videos on YouTube.
Even though I am a Sony fanboy, I defend Sony simply because I believe Erik is completely dead wrong on many of his so-called
"ideals." If he wins, there will be no stopping any trollers online. Perhaps you, Altailzq, should review the situation a little better, and realize that there's alot to lose here if Sony loses (trollers go rampant, more Erik-like people go unchecked, etc.).
The only thing that Erik might win is his money he couldn't get when he was banned (the chargeback), but that is debatable.
Oh really...
Get a grip...breathe into a paper bag...quit the hysterics.
That is not how it works.
IF it gets to court then it is very unlikely that this guy will win on all counts.
For a start, the "freedom of speech" part is BS (as I have said all along).
What will happen is a Judge will look at what is presented (oh...and BTW... I doubt YouTube videos would be allowed... and if any of you knew anything about the process you should have called me on that!)
The Judge will probably look a little bored with the whole thing... and say something like "Mr Estavillo, what is it you actually want?"
Now, at that point, if this guy is smart, he will say "I either want my ban for poor behavior on 'Resistance: Fall of Man' to apply to that game and that game only...OR... I want a refund of my unused credit in the PlayStation Network Wallet Fund since I can no longer use the service I have pre-payed for."
And that is about the best he can hope for.
If Sony is smart, they will agree to either of these.
So, they can still ban who they want but they cannot keep players money based on an 'unclear' set of rules without a proper avenue of appeal.
Fair enough?
But, let's say for a moment that the unbelievable happens and he wins completely and the Judge finds in his favor and gives him $55,000 and grants an injunction against Sony banning players from Resistance:FOM and dismisses the entire EULA (Which will NEVER HAPPEN BTW)
Then what happens is the next guy who gets banned takes it to court. And unless the situation is EXACTLY the same as this then the next Judge might find in favor of the game company...
Saying things like "Estavillo vs. Sony does not apply in this case because the EULA / TOS was worded and presented differently and you were playing on a different network and...."
You people seem to see the legal system as black and white?
There is a lot of grey in there.
Particularly when dealing with anything internet / computer related.
Most countries and legal systems still don't know how to deal with this whole area.
Originally posted by Gyrus Oh really... Get a grip...breathe into a paper bag...quit the hysterics.
That is not how it works. IF it gets to court then it is very unlikely that this guy will win on all counts.
For a start, the "freedom of speech" part is BS (as I have said all along). What will happen is a Judge will look at what is presented (oh...and BTW... I doubt YouTube videos would be allowed... and if any of you knew anything about the process you should have called me on that!)
The Judge will probably look a little bored with the whole thing... and say something like "Mr Estavillo, what is it you actually want?" Now, at that point, if this guy is smart, he will say "I either want my ban for poor behavior on 'Resistance: Fall of Man' to apply to that game and that game only...OR... I want a refund of my unused credit in the PlayStation Network Wallet Fund since I can no longer use the service I have pre-payed for." And that is about the best he can hope for. If Sony is smart, they will agree to either of these.
So, they can still ban who they want but they cannot keep players money based on an 'unclear' set of rules without a proper avenue of appeal. Fair enough?
But, let's say for a moment that the unbelievable happens and he wins completely and the Judge finds in his favor and gives him $55,000 and grants an injunction against Sony banning players from Resistance:FOM and dismisses the entire EULA (Which will NEVER HAPPEN BTW) Then what happens is the next guy who gets banned takes it to court. And unless the situation is EXACTLY the same as this then the next Judge might find in favor of the game company...
Saying things like "Estavillo vs. Sony does not apply in this case because the EULA / TOS was worded and presented differently and you were playing on a different network and...." You people seem to see the legal system as black and white? There is a lot of grey in there. Particularly when dealing with anything internet / computer related.
Most countries and legal systems still don't know how to deal with this whole area.
The 'smart' scenario is probably the most likely scenario. The guy does not have much of a case except for the refund part and Sony (and other MMO companies) is on very shaky ground on the no-refund-when-banned situation.
The 'interesting' scenario is one where the guy is not smart abotu his demands and/or the judge questions the enforcebility of the EULA. And if Sony loses on any important points they will appeal the heck out of it since this could threaten their entire MMO business model. So any 'interesting' scenario is going to be either very short (judge throws out the case when the guy is unreasonable) or it drags on for a long time (Sony appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary).
Originally posted by Gyrus Oh really... Get a grip...breathe into a paper bag...quit the hysterics.
That is not how it works. IF it gets to court then it is very unlikely that this guy will win on all counts.
For a start, the "freedom of speech" part is BS (as I have said all along). What will happen is a Judge will look at what is presented (oh...and BTW... I doubt YouTube videos would be allowed... and if any of you knew anything about the process you should have called me on that!)
The Judge will probably look a little bored with the whole thing... and say something like "Mr Estavillo, what is it you actually want?" Now, at that point, if this guy is smart, he will say "I either want my ban for poor behavior on 'Resistance: Fall of Man' to apply to that game and that game only...OR... I want a refund of my unused credit in the PlayStation Network Wallet Fund since I can no longer use the service I have pre-payed for." And that is about the best he can hope for. If Sony is smart, they will agree to either of these.
So, they can still ban who they want but they cannot keep players money based on an 'unclear' set of rules without a proper avenue of appeal. Fair enough?
But, let's say for a moment that the unbelievable happens and he wins completely and the Judge finds in his favor and gives him $55,000 and grants an injunction against Sony banning players from Resistance:FOM and dismisses the entire EULA (Which will NEVER HAPPEN BTW) Then what happens is the next guy who gets banned takes it to court. And unless the situation is EXACTLY the same as this then the next Judge might find in favor of the game company...
Saying things like "Estavillo vs. Sony does not apply in this case because the EULA / TOS was worded and presented differently and you were playing on a different network and...." You people seem to see the legal system as black and white? There is a lot of grey in there. Particularly when dealing with anything internet / computer related.
Most countries and legal systems still don't know how to deal with this whole area.
The 'smart' scenario is probably the most likely scenario. The guy does not have much of a case except for the refund part and Sony (and other MMO companies) is on very shaky ground on the no-refund-when-banned situation.
The 'interesting' scenario is one where the guy is not smart abotu his demands and/or the judge questions the enforcebility of the EULA. And if Sony loses on any important points they will appeal the heck out of it since this could threaten their entire MMO business model. So any 'interesting' scenario is going to be either very short (judge throws out the case when the guy is unreasonable) or it drags on for a long time (Sony appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary).
The legal system is a lot more black and white then grey... as you say there is lttle real precedent from which to draw from and this would create some grey as the judge/jury would be setting a precedent with any decision that is upheld.
I know very little about the Sony Network fees so... how much money are we talking about here?
I'm no fan of SOE, but this guy is going to lose. He really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. You argee to the terms of service when you subscribe and enter the game.
Not to mention he's wasting the court's time with this petty BS.
Technically, freedom of speech applies in the workplace too. Try calling your boss a "c@cksucker" and see if you still have a job...or , if instead of a raise for your dedication to the U.S. Constitution, they "ban" you from ever taking another step into the building.
... The guy does not have much of a case except for the refund part and Sony (and other MMO companies) is on very shaky ground on the no-refund-when-banned situation. The 'interesting' scenario is one where the guy is not smart abotu his demands and/or the judge questions the enforcebility of the EULA. And if Sony loses on any important points they will appeal the heck out of it since this could threaten their entire MMO business model. So any 'interesting' scenario is going to be either very short (judge throws out the case when the guy is unreasonable) or it drags on for a long time (Sony appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary).
The big issue with the bans is that once banned - customers really have very few options.
Where money is involved that's not good enough.
There needs to be a review process in place which is independent of the original team which imposed the ban.
You can even appeal parking tickets in this way - and computer games often cost more than parking tickets.
Really, this will only get really interesting if Mr Estavillo is reasonable and fair in his approach but Sony respond with "No. No way. The EULA says blah blah blah. So no. We are not prepared to negotiate or compromise. No."
If that happens then the EULA goes on trial.
That would be worth while because then the EULA could end up being looked at clause by clause.
That would be good just to dispel the myth that EULAs are somehow 100% ironclad 'law'.
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.
You're saying that the Xbox, Wii, or anyone online MMO should never ban complete whackjobs like Erik Estavillo? As far as I see, Sony seems to be catering to the fans, I really don't think us Sony fanboys are going to hate Sony for banning Erik Estavillo one bit.
Sounds to me that this person is reading only one part of the freedom of speech.Sure you have the right to speech,but you cannot say anything slanderous/defametory or obscene towards others,otherwise he could be actually be taken to court by the victims.Depending on how far his verbal harrasment went,he should be lucky if SOE does not counter suit on behalf of the victims,especially if said harrassed left the game and cost SOE money.I guess it also depends on the locale,because some areas are like redneck rampage for laws,and some are VERY strict.
One i cannot believe this guy has paid for a lawyer,and if he has,that lawyer must be a dummy or said client never asked for the lawyers opinion,he just went through with it.He will lose for sure,and a tidy some of cash to boot.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Most Lawyers won't take a case if they cant win..They will tell a person that straight up during consultation..Providing if the person is telling the whole truth to his lawyer..But hey it only took one person in the USA to kick God out of school through the Courts..Stranger things can happen...
Edit spelling..
Religion is protected,you cannot force one onto the other nor can you force your religion onto soneone who has a totally different religion.
This is not much different really,as you have every right to express yourself,but this is a case of actually breaking the laws that are a part of the amendment,witch includes defamation/slander/obscenities and there is other restricions on speech as well,something along the lines of corrupting someones mind to do illegal things ,i guess like HATE rallies,aka Ku Klux KLAN sort of stuff.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
People think they have "freedom of speech" and believe it means whatever they think it should mean but in fact when you go to court such things have specific pre-defined legal meanings. It does not mean that no one can discriminate against you for what you say. It just means that government cannot make laws to shut you up. Next time you try to rely on the phrase "freedom of speech" in an argument try to think about what it actually means instead of what you would like it to mean. No one has to respect your freedom of speech, except that government is not allowed (theoretically) to restrict it.
The meaning is defined in the 1st amendment. Google it.
Comments
Well, with all the inaccurate analogies going on, I think you should read the article here about private property:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstamstateaction.htm
It seems that most people are ready to accept whatever rules corporations push through when they offer us products.
I personally do not agree with this and see the fallacity of it all. Many rules are simply unreasonable, but most seem to accept them without any concerns to their rights as a customer. I do not personally have any axe to grind with corporations, but I do know how they operate. And with this knowledge, it is just impossible for me to make the leap of faith where I assume that they would think the best of their customers when they write non-negotiable rules. If you honestly believe they do, we will probably never agree on this topic and I just consider you very naive.
Legal issues surrounding the issue of EULA/TOSs etc., are very complex and it will takes years to create a better legal framework around them with test cases and research. Still most of these cases will have to be tackled case by case basis, so I just find it interesting that people mention that EULA/TOSs are somehow legally solid.
All that said, I do understand that many people have an axe to grind with guys like this. This is a personal bias, an emotional attachement that really got very little to do with the case itself. I never would play with a guy like this either and would be quick to ignore him, but that does not mean that he as a consumer has less rights than I do.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Tthe factors of money is involved.
RMT and the like as Sony loves to engage in puts them in tricky water. Do they compensate the players for time spent and the like "or station exchange" type things? Even if they proclaim the "items their property" this puts them into the a few realms which the case could be won.
After all EULA's are not COURT BINDING, More often than not they are jokes. With many loops holes and legal issues being pressed into them.
Some countries go as far as to say "The items if paid for are property of the player" denial of access to your property is grounds for court. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I could give two cares less about this guy, only that this is interesting. It could create the need for the supreme court to FINALLY rule on whether virtual property is yours or the companies. This could make it so Bans require such things as due compensation.
Sony could be opening a can of worms it does not WANT to do. This could in fact crush their RMT ways as if Virtual property is labeled as personal property (such as that razor you bought at the store) then you could in effect break the ways a comapny can ban you from their servers. Just as a company can't go "Hey we're recalling razors, no we won't compensate you" after the razor turns out to be infected with some mutagenic T virus or whatever.
After all money is money.
Tthe factors of money is involved.
RMT and the like as Sony loves to engage in puts them in tricky water. Do they compensate the players for time spent and the like "or station exchange" type things? Even if they proclaim the "items their property" this puts them into the a few realms which the case could be won.
After all EULA's are not COURT BINDING, More often than not they are jokes. With many loops holes and legal issues being pressed into them.
Some countries go as far as to say "The items if paid for are property of the player" denial of access to your property is grounds for court. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I could give two cares less about this guy, only that this is interesting. It could create the need for the supreme court to FINALLY rule on whether virtual property is yours or the companies. This could make it so Bans require such things as due compensation.
Sony could be opening a can of worms it does not WANT to do. This could in fact crush their RMT ways as if Virtual property is labeled as personal property (such as that razor you bought at the store) then you could in effect break the ways a comapny can ban you from their servers. Just as a company can't go "Hey we're recalling razors, no we won't compensate you" after the razor turns out to be infected with some mutagenic T virus or whatever.
After all money is money.
Personally, I wouldn't care two bits if virtual property laws killed the profitblilty of RMT. I'd rather see companies forced to make real content for all users paying one equal fee than just making the cool stuff for the guys with shop cash.
The real stinker with making virtual property the customers actual property is that:
1. ) if a person quits, obviously they can't access "their" property, so are companies supposed to reimburse someone every time they quit for whatever piece of pixels they have on their toons?
2. ) If the game sucks and ends up going under, is the company going to have to reimburse the customers who did play the game for their lost pixels?
And these questions are not aimed at RMT games at all, but strictly toward "one set fee for all" like regular mmorpgs should be. Because if you make the virtual items bought through RMT the property of the customer/player, than ALL virtual property is the property of the customer/player. Those rocks you mined? Those willow branches you cut? Those carrots you harvested? That +10 sword of uberness you just got lucky and looted? All of those would have to have a real world value and be open to monetery reimbursement upon account interruption/removal.
If that happens, expect every mmo except for Second Life and Entropia to just cease to exist.
Tthe factors of money is involved.
RMT and the like as Sony loves to engage in puts them in tricky water. Do they compensate the players for time spent and the like "or station exchange" type things? Even if they proclaim the "items their property" this puts them into the a few realms which the case could be won.
After all EULA's are not COURT BINDING, More often than not they are jokes. With many loops holes and legal issues being pressed into them.
Some countries go as far as to say "The items if paid for are property of the player" denial of access to your property is grounds for court. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I could give two cares less about this guy, only that this is interesting. It could create the need for the supreme court to FINALLY rule on whether virtual property is yours or the companies. This could make it so Bans require such things as due compensation.
Sony could be opening a can of worms it does not WANT to do. This could in fact crush their RMT ways as if Virtual property is labeled as personal property (such as that razor you bought at the store) then you could in effect break the ways a comapny can ban you from their servers. Just as a company can't go "Hey we're recalling razors, no we won't compensate you" after the razor turns out to be infected with some mutagenic T virus or whatever.
After all money is money.
Personally, I wouldn't care two bits if virtual property laws killed the profitblilty of RMT. I'd rather see companies forced to make real content for all users paying one equal fee than just making the cool stuff for the guys with shop cash.
The real stinker with making virtual property the customers actual property is that:
1. ) if a person quits, obviously they can't access "their" property, so are companies supposed to reimburse someone every time they quit for whatever piece of pixels they have on their toons?
2. ) If the game sucks and ends up going under, is the company going to have to reimburse the customers who did play the game for their lost pixels?
And these questions are not aimed at RMT games at all, but strictly toward "one set fee for all" like regular mmorpgs should be. Because if you make the virtual items bought through RMT the property of the customer/player, than ALL virtual property is the property of the customer/player. Those rocks you mined? Those willow branches you cut? Those carrots you harvested? That +10 sword of uberness you just got lucky and looted? All of those would have to have a real world value and be open to monetery reimbursement upon account interruption/removal.
If that happens, expect every mmo except for Second Life and Entropia to just cease to exist.
This is what makes it REALLY interesting. It has the potentiel to distrupt all we see with mmo's in general.
Maybe a bilaw to establish something along the lines of abandoned property or something to that extent. The same as it goes with real world. You leave a lawn mower on the side of the road for so much time, it eventually is not yours anymore.
This whole thing could just be a can of worms or a idle threat either way it really interests me in how it is going to shape up.
It's also funny the fact of me being dispassionate about this subject allows a more open mind on the subject. I honestly could care less on this subject except it's a pandora's box!
That's what is exciting.
agreed
Man if he wins the Trolls everywhere will rise up and overthrow the Internet. There will be Muhuhahahas heard around the globe! Next you will be contacted with money about a class action lawsuit where you were a Troll in a thread and receieved a reward.
This guy is a total loser. He won't win.
All defending Sony deserve every abuse from big companies.
So we should not care who is right and who is wrong but merely whether they are Sony or not?
All defending Sony knows that Sony is right in this matter, and that Erik Estavillo is a loony that really needs to stop posting videos on YouTube.
Even though I am a Sony fanboy, I defend Sony simply because I believe Erik is completely dead wrong on many of his so-called
"ideals." If he wins, there will be no stopping any trollers online. Perhaps you, Altailzq, should review the situation a little better, and realize that there's alot to lose here if Sony loses (trollers go rampant, more Erik-like people go unchecked, etc.).
The only thing that Erik might win is his money he couldn't get when he was banned (the chargeback), but that is debatable.
All defending Sony knows that Sony is right in this matter, and that Erik Estavillo is a loony that really needs to stop posting videos on YouTube.
Even though I am a Sony fanboy, I defend Sony simply because I believe Erik is completely dead wrong on many of his so-called
"ideals." If he wins, there will be no stopping any trollers online. Perhaps you, Altailzq, should review the situation a little better, and realize that there's alot to lose here if Sony loses (trollers go rampant, more Erik-like people go unchecked, etc.).
The only thing that Erik might win is his money he couldn't get when he was banned (the chargeback), but that is debatable.
Oh really...
Get a grip...breathe into a paper bag...quit the hysterics.
That is not how it works.
IF it gets to court then it is very unlikely that this guy will win on all counts.
For a start, the "freedom of speech" part is BS (as I have said all along).
What will happen is a Judge will look at what is presented (oh...and BTW... I doubt YouTube videos would be allowed... and if any of you knew anything about the process you should have called me on that!)
The Judge will probably look a little bored with the whole thing... and say something like "Mr Estavillo, what is it you actually want?"
Now, at that point, if this guy is smart, he will say "I either want my ban for poor behavior on 'Resistance: Fall of Man' to apply to that game and that game only...OR... I want a refund of my unused credit in the PlayStation Network Wallet Fund since I can no longer use the service I have pre-payed for."
And that is about the best he can hope for.
If Sony is smart, they will agree to either of these.
So, they can still ban who they want but they cannot keep players money based on an 'unclear' set of rules without a proper avenue of appeal.
Fair enough?
But, let's say for a moment that the unbelievable happens and he wins completely and the Judge finds in his favor and gives him $55,000 and grants an injunction against Sony banning players from Resistance:FOM and dismisses the entire EULA (Which will NEVER HAPPEN BTW)
Then what happens is the next guy who gets banned takes it to court. And unless the situation is EXACTLY the same as this then the next Judge might find in favor of the game company...
Saying things like "Estavillo vs. Sony does not apply in this case because the EULA / TOS was worded and presented differently and you were playing on a different network and...."
You people seem to see the legal system as black and white?
There is a lot of grey in there.
Particularly when dealing with anything internet / computer related.
Most countries and legal systems still don't know how to deal with this whole area.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
The 'smart' scenario is probably the most likely scenario. The guy does not have much of a case except for the refund part and Sony (and other MMO companies) is on very shaky ground on the no-refund-when-banned situation.
The 'interesting' scenario is one where the guy is not smart abotu his demands and/or the judge questions the enforcebility of the EULA. And if Sony loses on any important points they will appeal the heck out of it since this could threaten their entire MMO business model. So any 'interesting' scenario is going to be either very short (judge throws out the case when the guy is unreasonable) or it drags on for a long time (Sony appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary).
The 'smart' scenario is probably the most likely scenario. The guy does not have much of a case except for the refund part and Sony (and other MMO companies) is on very shaky ground on the no-refund-when-banned situation.
The 'interesting' scenario is one where the guy is not smart abotu his demands and/or the judge questions the enforcebility of the EULA. And if Sony loses on any important points they will appeal the heck out of it since this could threaten their entire MMO business model. So any 'interesting' scenario is going to be either very short (judge throws out the case when the guy is unreasonable) or it drags on for a long time (Sony appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary).
The legal system is a lot more black and white then grey... as you say there is lttle real precedent from which to draw from and this would create some grey as the judge/jury would be setting a precedent with any decision that is upheld.
I know very little about the Sony Network fees so... how much money are we talking about here?
I'm no fan of SOE, but this guy is going to lose. He really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. You argee to the terms of service when you subscribe and enter the game.
Not to mention he's wasting the court's time with this petty BS.
Technically, freedom of speech applies in the workplace too. Try calling your boss a "c@cksucker" and see if you still have a job...or , if instead of a raise for your dedication to the U.S. Constitution, they "ban" you from ever taking another step into the building.
The big issue with the bans is that once banned - customers really have very few options.
Where money is involved that's not good enough.
There needs to be a review process in place which is independent of the original team which imposed the ban.
You can even appeal parking tickets in this way - and computer games often cost more than parking tickets.
Really, this will only get really interesting if Mr Estavillo is reasonable and fair in his approach but Sony respond with "No. No way. The EULA says blah blah blah. So no. We are not prepared to negotiate or compromise. No."
If that happens then the EULA goes on trial.
That would be worth while because then the EULA could end up being looked at clause by clause.
That would be good just to dispel the myth that EULAs are somehow 100% ironclad 'law'.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
You're saying that the Xbox, Wii, or anyone online MMO should never ban complete whackjobs like Erik Estavillo? As far as I see, Sony seems to be catering to the fans, I really don't think us Sony fanboys are going to hate Sony for banning Erik Estavillo one bit.
Glad to see the "i hate sony" gang is still around, i was afraid they found a game to play or something.
(apparently I can't work the quote button)
WOOT
www.eorzeapedia.com
(Great FF14 source)
Socrates represented himself and did a damn good job.
Arguement disproven.... (hmmm well he did lose... but he shouldn;t have....)
WOOT
www.eorzeapedia.com
(Great FF14 source)
Sounds to me that this person is reading only one part of the freedom of speech.Sure you have the right to speech,but you cannot say anything slanderous/defametory or obscene towards others,otherwise he could be actually be taken to court by the victims.Depending on how far his verbal harrasment went,he should be lucky if SOE does not counter suit on behalf of the victims,especially if said harrassed left the game and cost SOE money.I guess it also depends on the locale,because some areas are like redneck rampage for laws,and some are VERY strict.
One i cannot believe this guy has paid for a lawyer,and if he has,that lawyer must be a dummy or said client never asked for the lawyers opinion,he just went through with it.He will lose for sure,and a tidy some of cash to boot.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Religion is protected,you cannot force one onto the other nor can you force your religion onto soneone who has a totally different religion.
This is not much different really,as you have every right to express yourself,but this is a case of actually breaking the laws that are a part of the amendment,witch includes defamation/slander/obscenities and there is other restricions on speech as well,something along the lines of corrupting someones mind to do illegal things ,i guess like HATE rallies,aka Ku Klux KLAN sort of stuff.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
LoL! I'm glad that this makes you happy
I got to think of a song when I hear about SOE.
www.youtube.com/watch
Dont mind the video its all about the lyrics.
People think they have "freedom of speech" and believe it means whatever they think it should mean but in fact when you go to court such things have specific pre-defined legal meanings. It does not mean that no one can discriminate against you for what you say. It just means that government cannot make laws to shut you up. Next time you try to rely on the phrase "freedom of speech" in an argument try to think about what it actually means instead of what you would like it to mean. No one has to respect your freedom of speech, except that government is not allowed (theoretically) to restrict it.
The meaning is defined in the 1st amendment. Google it.