Any lawyers out there?

[EQDoze]

Did anyone read high_jeeves post?

It seems those of you arguing legal angles, and semantics have missed the entire gist of what makes ALL of that argument moot (i.e. pointless, baseless, a waste of time).

Here it is, in ONE very simple, plain english sentence:

Sony can, and Sony may ban you at any time for any reason, or no reason.


Get it?


---

If they kept charging you after banning you? Simple, they refund the money. Do you REALLY think they're going to go to court over $13 or $26, or even a full year subscription?

Here's a scenario:

Songsinger tells Addmezzer, 'hi snugglebuns!'
Addmezzer tells Songsinger, 'hi snookums!'
Absor appears before you in a swirling mist.
Absor says, 'Greetings Songsinger and Addmezzer, I am Absor, PR Master at SOE.'
Absor says, 'I regret to inform you that we've just found "snugglebuns" to be an offensive term, and are going to ban you, Songsinger.'
Absor says, 'also, because you, Addmezzer, did not take offense at this word we are also banning you.'
Songsinger says, 'but but'
Absor says, 'Sorry'
Absor shrugs.

[homer]

Why do I have this funny feeling that the peeps over at SOE are sitting there reading all this and laughing their collective asses off?

[fripouille]

why are you guys even trying to see if it s violating the EULA and arguing about it ?
Jeeves said it, and many before him : they can ban you just because it s monday, and on mondays they like to ban random players.

[Mr Guy]

Fortunately they are operating in America, the land of the frivolous lawsuit.

Which would you rather be: Distraught 30 year old woman banned from using EverQuest when she did Nothing Wrong (tm); prevented from having meaningful social interaction from a service she paid for; DISCRIMINATED against because she may have used a firewall that put her NIC in promiscuous mode without her knowledge; HARASSED by a faceless CORPORATION that has a legally unenforcable clickwrap agreement; ADDICTED to the game that this corporation has TARGETTED at her; with PHYSICAL ailments such as Carpal Tunnel and RSD because the contract forbid programs designed for HANDICAP COMPLIANCE?

OR:

Major international corporation with lawyers coming out of its ass, but facing a 40,000 member class action lawsuit filed by said woman, drummed up on boards like this one, signed on to by everyone who was ever "addicted" to EQ, especially those who played for tradeskills. The words capitalized above would be the ones hitting front page headlines in stories such as: FORMER EVERQUEST PLAYER CAMPS $10 MILLION CHECK.



How much fun did that nut job Wooley have?

SOE may be in their rights, I still wouldn't want to be them if they ban the wrong nut job, for a flimsy excuse like, we noticed a process attached to our memory (EVERQUEST BANS PLAYER FOR USING ANTIVIRUS SCANNER) or a promiscous nic (EVERQUEST SAYS: CABLE MODEM USERS? NO FIREWALLS)


Gah, I'd have a blast writing the headlines in a case like that. Most people think EQ is evil anyway. Get one old judge from the AD&D days and you are as good as rich.

[MrMaster]

Mr. Guy...All I Can Say Is Awsome... Camps 10Mil Check...Priceless...

[TheOne]

When I bought EverQuest I took it back to the store as soon as I had an opportunity to read the EULA. I wouldn't agree to a contract that gave all rights to the issuer and no rights to the purchaser. I was told that I couldn't have my money back.

Since I was unable to read the EULA prior to compensating the seller and I was unwilling to agree to the EULA (i.e. I had to pay before I could know what I was agreeing to and I could not get my money back when I decided the the EULA was too restrictive) isn't the contract void? Just curios as to wether the legal system states that a contract can be enforced when the buyer has no knowlege of what he/she is purchasing.

By the way, I also took back Windows 2000 and was told "too bad."

I guess I'd like to know if the theory is that I'm paying for the right to accept the EULA? What if I don't accept the EULA and I have never played the game? Since the software is "open" I cannot return it to the seller and the producer will not refund my money.

Also I'm curious; they upgraded the game and made it necessary after purchase for me to change to "directX 8.0" which I would just as well not have on my computer. Since they altered the program and made it unusable by me, do I have recourse against them?

Just some legal questions I have. Oh, incidentally the first question that I asked was an argument that MicroSoft itself used in a fight with a Linux manufacturer (i.e. MS said "we can use anything from Linux that we want because their contract is void because of this...").

[Ratt]

EULA's mean exactly jack shit in a court of law. So whether you agreed to it or not is immaterial.

As has already been said, Sony can ban you from their PRIVATE PROPERTY for any reason at all. They would have to refund your unused subscription fee... because that is the extent of damages you incurred from a legal standpoint.

If you wanted to file a civil (or maybe even criminal, but that would be tough) suit against Sony for providing an addictive substance.... you might win with the right lawyer and stupid ^H^H^H symathetic jury... but that's another issue entirely.

None of this constitutes legal advice, of course, because I am not a lawyer. However, my father is I ask him about stuff like this all the time and he explains (in mind numbing detail on occasion) about the common falacies of the arm chair lawyers and why most of the tactics proposed on message boards won't work in a real court.

[throx]

Listen to Ratt and High Jeeves.

Sony can ban your ass any time they want.

Sony has a bigger PR department than you do so unless there's a corpse for the media vultures to flock over you aren't going to get headlines for being banned. In fact, no one will care but you.

Did I mention Sony can ban your ass any time they want?

[whome]

I honestly didn't think this would stir up such a debate.

I have come to the following personal conclusion: EQ isn't fun without showeq. So either I don't play because it's not fun, or I have some fun and chance getting banned. The destination for both paths is the same, but the latter lets me have fun a little bit longer ;o)

For the EQ developers out there, here are things to add to the game to remove my desire for showeq:
-a mapping skill
-a better con'ing system
-a mini radar like AC has (so I can med and heal safer)

After all wouldn't it be better to spend the time and resources removing the need for showeq rather than trying to break it?

[smoothielover]

Retail trade laws in oz may be different but in oz if the package is opened the RETAILER cannot do anything about a direct refund because it isnt' their fault or their agreement. BUT the local distrivutor (UBIsoft) should be able to check if a key has been used via a email etc and if it hasnt then they can provide a refund and re package the product.

The EULA is read BEFORE enterign your account code and the account codes is SPECIFICALLY what you are purchasing. the fact theres cd etc doent matter that much. By not activating the account code you shoud still be entitled to a refund via distrbution channels.

the fact the eula has the disclaimer "we can ban you for what ever you want does NOT make the EULA perfect and unchallengable BUT yes it makes it less likely to be challenged on this basis. again they have to demonstrate due cause. we pay UPFRONT for the service which means that they are contractuallly bound to provide a service as requested. sure they can put the we can ban you for whatever line in there to deter people from challenging BUT the fact that they have the ability to put for instance "if you agree to this you lose all your civil rights as a consumer does not actually mean we DO.

If i remember rightly it took someone actually challenging the eula on a privacy rule to get them to actually make it so you had to agree each time you logged in. i remember somethign along the lines of. "the login process has been changed to suit legal needs so we can search the everquest directory for updating files.


this was part of the original Eula on the everquest CD pre kunark but wasnt done each time and thus was against the law.

this proves that the legalities of the EULA are not 100% perceent from day 1 does that mean its still binding. probably but its not UNCHALLENGABLE

i also agree with the concept that we wont win tho

the ethical aspect i would like to close my involvement on this thread is actually......

If any software package has a eula and it is not in accordance to other previously defined laws (privacy, trade & service) then does it in fact waive these previous rights.

My gut feeling here is that the government and local laws will OVERIDE a EULA if deemed innappropriate.


basically on the software development level it boils down to - just because you wrote a eula doesnt actually mean is legally upholdable without being take through a legal process.

previously as i mentioned it was PROVEN that the eula was not all encompassing of the privacy laws and thus they made a chance to the login process.

[high_jeeves]

previously as i mentioned it was PROVEN that the eula was not all encompassing of the privacy laws and thus they made a chance to the login process.

What change to the login process? If my memory serves, I have been clicking on the EULA "I agree" since beta...

Also, all this talk about law is irrelevant. The servers are their private property. They dont have to deal with the law to ban you from them. Think of it like cable. You pay for a month of cable, if they find you stealing premium channels during that month, they will cut your service immediatly. You have no right to the rest of your month of cable that you paid for because YOU broke the contract. Same thing here.. YOU defaulted, so they dont have to hold up their obligation to you.

Once again, bottom line: Their property, their rules... they can ban you for anything they want. You have no legal right to not be banned. You agree to this fact BEFORE you pay them. Granted, the EULA doesnt allow them to break any existing laws (IE, the EULA couldnt say that if you cheat, they can kill your mother), but banning you from THEIR property doesnt violate any laws.

--Jeeves

[smoothielover]

cant remember the exact details after this amount of time but it was done pre velious. from memory it was along the lines of please agree to the second eula agreement which should have been included in the first Eula to allow us to perform the patching process. i may even be before the kunark patches as i started playing pre kunark and saw this firsthand

[high_jeeves]

That was just because they modified the EULA.. you have always (since beta) had to click through it, if I remember correctly.

--Jeeves

[UserZero]

HeHe. You are all correct sirs! SOE can ban anyone for any (or no ) reason, BUT you can also file a suit for actual and punitive damages against anyone for any (or no) reason. You only have to convince the court of your claims. SOE could even be sued for forcing you to sign a contract (click!) under duress, but you (being the plaintiff) would have to "prove" (i.e. convince the court) that you have been wronged. Having been involved in class-action suits before, I know that as the number of plaintiffs grows to be >100, the courts become more attentive and more sympathetic. Just ask our good friends at Philip morris for some insight into this quirk of human nature. IMO, I think we should all TRY to get our accounts banned, so we have more legal "meat" for the courts to chew on...


A wave of fear swept over the Ivory Tower as they
banished the demons by the thousands, only to
have them reappear in lawyers offices across the
nation.