Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lance Hawke
Beyond Divinity Inc Blind Beavers
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 22:59:00 -
[31]
okay
so are you going to start breaking the EULA now and then try and take CCP to court if you get banned?
If not, then GTFO because nobody ******* cares.
If yes, then GTFO because you're a ******* idiot.
|
Lab Technician071548
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:01:00 -
[32]
Wow, you really read a lot into this. I read the decision (call me sick, I enjoy such things even if reading them is part of my job).
The decision pertains to a game in which the Company has broadly stated that its players may own property internal to the game. No other game does that. In the case, the plaintiff paid $300 for land in the game (think about buying Jita 4-4). The Company claimed that the land was purchased improperly, revoked the land and froze Plaintiff's account. One thing that makes this case radically different from others is that its participants have been told that they have property rights by the CEO of the company and this message has been spread far and wide many times on many media.
The problem with EULAs in general is that they are contracts of adhesion. That is, a contract provided by the side with superior bargaining power giving the other side the option simply to accept or reject the contract. The very nature of contracts of adhesion have resulted in a body of statutory and case law granting certain benefits to the side with less bargaining power. For example, if there is an interpretation question in a contract of adhesion, it will be interpreted in the manner most favorable to the side with less bargaining power.
Under California law cited in the decision, a contract of adhesion is not enforceable if it is "unconscionable". For several reasons, the court ruled that the contract is unconscionable under California law. In fact, the analysis is both long and interesting. The many ways in which the Second Life ToS is unconscionable under California law is beyond the intention of this post or the length alloted to a posting. The primary movers in the decision, based on my reading, are the fact that the terms of the contract are not materially negotiable and the terms are extremely one sidedly favorable to the Company. For instance, breach of EULA is at the sole discretion of the Company.
"In effect, the TOS provide [defendant] with a variety of one-sided remedies to resolve disputes, while forcing its customers to arbitrate any disputes with [defendant]. When a dispute arose, [defendant] exercised its option to use self-help by freezing [plaintiff's] account, retaining funds that [defendant] alone determined were subject to dispute, and then telling [plaintiff] that he could resolve the dispute by initiating a costly arbitration process. The TOS expressly authorized [defendant] to engage in such unilateral conduct."
There are other aspects of the unconscionable status ruling, but they are generally variations on the theme that the EULA is a) non-negotiable and b) wildly one sided in favor of the Company. Keep in mind that this whole thing is in the context of actual properpty rights. This has nothing to do with any other MMO that I know of unless someone can get a court to rule that my hulk is actually MY hulk and not CCPs. This whole line of legal reasoning is about property rights and the ability to enforce the Second Life EULA's arbitration provision.
While it's not likely that CCP or any other MMO company can sue players for breach of the EULA, alone, that doesn't mean that they can get in trouble for preventing you from having access to their own property. If your EULA breach causes harm to the company, they can sue you for that harm and skip any discussion of the EULA. Therefor, a EULA is really about expressing the rules of player conduct in order to maintain access. Second Life is unique in that there's a dispute over something to which the player has a property right. If EVE takes my ship and freezes my account, they can simply say it's their's, anyway, and they can do what they want. Second Life has done the equivalent of stating that my ship belongs to me and therein lies the problem: if it's mine, then they cannot abuse their control over its existence by pointing to an unenforceable contract.
----
signature replaced (max size 24000 bytes) - should be ok now. OK? |
Osmaal
Courteous Ultra-Nice Transport Services
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:06:00 -
[33]
The EULA is a license to use CCP products and services. You pay for this license on either an monthly, 30 day, 90 day 6 monthly or whatever basis.
If you've paid your sub then you are protected by the EULA or not depending on how people choose to interpret it.
CCP however do not have to allow your subscription to continue. they can always not to renew it when you attempt to purchase more time. there are always ways that they can stop you playing.
So be nice and stop or the whine or at least give me some cheese with it.
And remeber boys and girls (well boys pretending to be girls) its just a game!!
"Its not the size, its what you do with it that counts" |
|
Kaemonn
Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:06:00 -
[34]
Lets keep this friendly please. No discussion of politics or issues that could in anyway shape or form cause hostilities.
forum rules | [email protected]| Eve-CCG
|
|
Lab Technician071548
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:06:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Lab Technician071548 on 08/06/2007 23:08:55 It is noteworth that defendant never tried to use their one get-out-of-jail free card: an argument that the factors leading to the unconscionableness of their contract were somehow a business necessity. It seems to me that they could have made such an argument to avoid the bulk of this mess. Moreover, had they simply refunded the money with a gag agreement, they could have probably avoided this mess while also keeping it quiet. Instead, they're on slashdot.
They've made the start of a real pickle of a legal environment for games. I hope that future cases contemplated by the courts keep in mind that Second Life grants property rights. Honestly, if someone yar's me, I will not sue them but if we're not careful, that could happen.
THE ONLY THINGS THE COURT DECIDED IS THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND THAT THE SECOND LIFE EULA IS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW AND, THEREFORE, DEFENDANT CANNOT PREVENT LITIGATION BY FORCING THE CASE INTO BINDING ARBITRATION AS CALLED FOR IN THE EULA.
The applicability of this case to MMOs that do not offer property rights to players is very small. The lesson for CCP is to ensure that they have a business necessity case for the one-sidedness of their EULA and to ensure that they are very clear about participants having no property rights. ----
signature replaced (max size 24000 bytes) - should be ok now. OK? |
Lab Technician071548
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:07:00 -
[36]
BTW, I am not an attorney. ----
signature replaced (max size 24000 bytes) - should be ok now. OK? |
Lab Technician071548
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:14:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Namingway The discussion is moot, Federal judges do not have the authority to rule on things like this in the US. The fact they do so is a gross violation of the Constitution.
IT's a call for each state, just like everything else, and that judge saying you cannot be held to a contact you cannot alter means he just invalidated FAR more than MMO EULAs.
False. Federal courts have jurisdiction over matters of interstate commerce as it is with the fed that laws over interstate matters reside. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US constitution, commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause" and by other names.
In the case, plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident seeking remedy against a perceived wrong alleged to have been done to him by a Delaware corporation based in California. ----
signature replaced (max size 24000 bytes) - should be ok now. OK? |
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:26:00 -
[38]
Quote: Whoop-de-doo... It's in the US. Not Iceland nor the UK. And the only numbskull is the idiot that thinks everyone outside the US should know or care what a Federal Court is.
Ermm you might be the numbskull to be honest. They are conducting business in some way with american's. Locating yourself in a non USA country does'nt grant you immunity. Just look as what happened to several gambling sites not located in the usa....Kinda like Netteller.
the eula's have always been as meaningless as beware of dogs signs. you can put up all the warnings you want but it doesn;t equal the same thing as legally giving up any rights you might have as pertain to said warnings.
Ie I can have a huge deep hole in my lawn, put up a sign that says private property, and a warning sign saying BIG HOLE fall in at your own risk! if someone does fall in and die I can still be liable.
|
Elenath
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:29:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote: Whoop-de-doo... It's in the US. Not Iceland nor the UK. And the only numbskull is the idiot that thinks everyone outside the US should know or care what a Federal Court is.
Ermm you might be the numbskull to be honest. They are conducting business in some way with american's. Locating yourself in a non USA country does'nt grant you immunity. Just look as what happened to several gambling sites not located in the usa....Kinda like Netteller.
the eula's have always been as meaningless as beware of dogs signs. you can put up all the warnings you want but it doesn;t equal the same thing as legally giving up any rights you might have as pertain to said warnings.
Ie I can have a huge deep hole in my lawn, put up a sign that says private property, and a warning sign saying BIG HOLE fall in at your own risk! if someone does fall in and die I can still be liable.
The lawsuit you are citing (along with countless others) are conducted under International Law, or with the assistance of the legal channels in other countries.
One judge's opinion (which, again, is not LAW) has nothing to do with CCPs EULA.
|
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:41:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Loyal Servant
FEDERAL court numbskull. FEDERAL.
A Federal Court has no jurastiction on the soil of the Republic of Iceland (home of CCP) or the soil of the United Kingdom (site of the tranquility cluster).
Even if CCP have offices in the US, it's CCP hf. in Iceland who has to answer to the court, and their legal dcumentation is written and restricted to Icelandic law.
In short terms, potental people suing don't have a leg to stand on if they think their case will hold up in a Federal Court.
>>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
|
|
Microsoft Sam
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:49:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Microsoft Sam on 08/06/2007 23:49:00 Edit: Scratch that, Verones sig is always good to look at in a thread
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 23:54:00 -
[42]
Quote: The lawsuit you are citing (along with countless others) are conducted under International Law, or with the assistance of the legal channels in other countries.
One judge's opinion (which, again, is not LAW) has nothing to do with CCPs EULA.
Uhm your wrong in EVERYTHING YOU SAID.
One federal judge decision does matter, that is how things work in this country. Row vs wade 1 judge made the decision..... Judges are the politicians new tool for dictating law in our country. how you think eminent domain got twisted?
the other thing you seem to COMPLETELY be missing is the fact CCP conducts business in some degree in the USA and thus is subject to the USA laws IF it wants to continue doing so legally.
|
parrowdox
Caldari K-lash-nek-off
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 00:02:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 08/06/2007 22:31:16
Quote: bla bla bla americans resorting to legal action for a game OH NOES It's ccps game and i hope they ban anyone for any reason they see fit
Heheh,, QFT.
One american judge versus Iceland. Yeah. Right
A Judge in america also let Paris Hilton out of prison,,, judges in america must be absolutely oozing intelligence
i agree :)
|
suza
Prison Break Inc. FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 00:03:00 -
[44]
I also read the judgement and found it to be fairly interesting. Remember this is not a judgement against CCP, but against all massive multi's. Such judgements as these often only lay a bases for legal presedents to be set.
It is a fair guess that the EU would follow such an outcome, and being bases in iceland would not help. When you trade in both the UE and US you come under both of their trade laws etc.
However the basis of the judgement that I understand it is that to say "its my game so naaa" is not acceptable once you accept someones money. Once you take their money they then have rights. The publican is in his rights to refuse to sell a drink, but once he does he comes under a shedload of trade laws. The same goes for the likes of CCP, Blizzard etc.
All it is doing is pulling the online gaming companies inline with any other trader.
Good or bad, I dont know, but expecting good trade practices from online gaming companies is not a bad this surely ? -
Fly Hard, Fly fast for tomorrow is another day for Killing! |
Elenath
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 00:26:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Elenath on 09/06/2007 00:26:17
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote: The lawsuit you are citing (along with countless others) are conducted under International Law, or with the assistance of the legal channels in other countries.
One judge's opinion (which, again, is not LAW) has nothing to do with CCPs EULA.
Uhm your wrong in EVERYTHING YOU SAID.
One federal judge decision does matter, that is how things work in this country. Row vs wade 1 judge made the decision..... Judges are the politicians new tool for dictating law in our country. how you think eminent domain got twisted?
the other thing you seem to COMPLETELY be missing is the fact CCP conducts business in some degree in the USA and thus is subject to the USA laws IF it wants to continue doing so legally.
Brilliant.
Firstly, it's 'Roe v. Wade'... not 'Row'.
Secondly, judges do not create law, they discern and interpret law. That is why decisions can be overthrown all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Third, United States Federal Law has absolutely no jurisdiction over how businesses are run in Iceland. Period. End of story. Beyond that scope International Law takes over... which, in fact, has nothing to do AT ALL with this article or the judge's decision (which, again, is not LAW... read above).
Lastly, brush up on the history and details regarding what you are citing. Because you, in fact, are the one who is wrong regarding every, single thing you said. Including your spelling.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 00:35:00 -
[46]
Originally by: suza
It is a fair guess that the EU would follow such an outcome, and being bases in iceland would not help. When you trade in both the UE and US you come under both of their trade laws etc.
Why? EU and US contract law are quite different atm, why would the EU courts automatically follow the decision of one US judge? Thats a bit of a leap, that. --------
|
Pinstripe Giamatti
Rise Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:11:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
...
A Judge in america also let Paris Hilton out of prison,,, judges in america must be absolutely oozing intelligence
Actually, Einstein, an administrator in the LA County Sheriff's Department released her. The judge is the one who ordered her back in, per the terms of his original decision.
Prolly ought to get your totally irrelevant facts straight before you post them. |
Pinstripe Giamatti
Rise Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:11:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
...
A Judge in america also let Paris Hilton out of prison,,, judges in america must be absolutely oozing intelligence
Actually, Einstein, an administrator in the LA County Sheriff's Department released her. The judge is the one who ordered her back in, per the terms of his original decision.
Prolly ought to get your totally irrelevant facts straight before you post them. |
Roshan longshot
Gallente Ordos Humanitas FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:14:00 -
[49]
First off, CCP America was formed when CCP merged with White wolf right? So doing that they agree to operate and abide by all US laws present and future. Thats the way busnness goes.
One federal judge can be overruled by takeing the case to the next step 'court of appeals' I would recomend going to the 9th district, those fruitcakes like to make some strange jugements.
ROSHAN LONGSHOT 03-06-2003 18-06-2007. CCP THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD FOUR YEARS. YOU DONE WELL. BUT ATLAST ALL THINGS MUST COME TO AN END, AND FOR ME ITS TIME TO LEAVE EVE. CLEAR SKIES AND SMOOTH JETS |
Roshan longshot
Gallente Ordos Humanitas FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:14:00 -
[50]
First off, CCP America was formed when CCP merged with White wolf right? So doing that they agree to operate and abide by all US laws present and future. Thats the way busnness goes.
One federal judge can be overruled by takeing the case to the next step 'court of appeals' I would recomend going to the 9th district, those fruitcakes like to make some strange jugements.
ROSHAN LONGSHOT 03-06-2003 18-06-2007. CCP THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD FOUR YEARS. YOU DONE WELL. BUT ATLAST ALL THINGS MUST COME TO AN END, AND FOR ME ITS TIME TO LEAVE EVE. CLEAR SKIES AND SMOOTH JETS |
|
jason hill
Caldari Nightmare Holdings Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:20:00 -
[51]
sorry im a bit thick when it comes to the law ..can someone plese speak in english
destroy everything you touch |
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:25:00 -
[52]
EULA's are a bunch of untested garbage anyways, guys. When have the been taken to court in the EU or the US for REAL (yes, I know Iceland isn't part of the EU, but they do business in the EU and the US). Imagine if you signed an EULA agreeing to non-consensual organ donation at any time because you wanted to play EvE, and then CCP decided to pop in and have a short surgical session with you (I'm thinking of Monty Python here... 'so, can we have your liver, then?'). Would you really think just because Iceland might have a law on the books that said that was okay, that it really would be, simply because CCP operates from Iceland?
Until a company successfully avoids a determined assault by angry customers with high-priced lawyers, an EULA is nothing except the first step of a scare tactic against who don't have the time to sue.
|
Nicoli Voldkif
Caelli-Merced INC. Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:42:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Roshan longshot First off, CCP America was formed when CCP merged with White wolf right? So doing that they agree to operate and abide by all US laws present and future. Thats the way busnness goes.
Yes and No.. By having a US branch all operations performed by the company in the US are bound by US Criminal law.
What it doesn't mean is that CCP is bound by US civil law. By that, I mean it is common practice when a multi-national corporation enters into business with another entity for it to specify under which nations laws the transactions will be governed by. In CCPs case it would be a business nessicity to specify a jurisdiction to provide a reasonable amount of predictability and stability in the interpertation of the EULA, as it would be completely impractical to write a EULA that would be consistent in ever conceivable country that CCP would have have contact with. -----------------------------------------------
|
Dirk Longfellow
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 02:42:00 -
[54]
Hate to burst everyones bubble here.
Since CCP does business in the US, they are subject to civil lawsuits. Now, the problem becomes enforcement. Technically what everyone is getting at is that the US has no avenue for enforcement. However, it would be incredibly easy for them to ban CCP from offering their services to American players and would be even easier for them to enforce it as has been done before.
I doubt it would ever go that far, MMO companies in the US have a much harder time ahead of them.
|
cal nereus
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 06:44:00 -
[55]
A European court actually had a huge impact on case involving only Americans, and precedent has shown the reverse happening as well. So, even if CCP is in Iceland, and the server is in England, the whole international commerce bit allows foreign courts (if they have enough umph) to have an impact. :-/
I think that's how it works anyways. I am by no means an expert on any of this law mumbo-jumbo.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 06:47:00 -
[56]
The EULA has never meant anything in this game anyway. Look at all the ISK farmers and macro miners. CCP just used the EULA to ban people they don't like, not to make the game a better place. It is not uniformly enforced when it is cited as a reason and I am sure if they tried to ban someone who cared enough and that person took them to court and sued for loss of assets they would win. Not sure how it would work since CCP is in Iceland, but they do have offices in the US and I am sure there is something the most powerful government in the world could do to enforce its ruling if they so wished. RISE Recruitment Thread
|
Theron Jolar
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 07:03:00 -
[57]
I really doubt CCP even cares, they may read it out of interest but it has no impact on their bussiness.
There are many countries the world over where TOS and EULAS are invalid already, I can name my own as one of them (Denmark). They are not legally binding because to be so they have to be accepted before any transactions were made between the two parties, one party cant suddenly after the first have already bought something come and tell them that they have to sign something to keep using it. If the Second party signs it anyway it has still lost its validity.
|
Keorythe
Caldari Terra Rosa Militia
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 07:36:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
Quote: The lawsuit you are citing (along with countless others) are conducted under International Law, or with the assistance of the legal channels in other countries.
One judge's opinion (which, again, is not LAW) has nothing to do with CCPs EULA.
Uhm your wrong in EVERYTHING YOU SAID.
One federal judge decision does matter, that is how things work in this country. Row vs wade 1 judge made the decision..... Judges are the politicians new tool for dictating law in our country. how you think eminent domain got twisted?
the other thing you seem to COMPLETELY be missing is the fact CCP conducts business in some degree in the USA and thus is subject to the USA laws IF it wants to continue doing so legally.
One local or federal judge has no power over an international affair. Their power is located solely within their juristiction. If an international company does something a federal judge does not like then they must first determine if that company does business in the US. Since CCP is not only based out of Iceland and conducts 0 business transactions on US soil (internet transactions by law do not occur at your workstation) then that judge must appeal to an international court entity to do anything about it. It doesn't matter if CCP has any assets on US soil. Roe vs. Wade was strictly a US law and had no standing with any other country.
Right now online transactions are a very grey area as there is virtually no law with governs them. Since your contract with CCP concerns your ability to play instead of any property then no judge or even the president can do anything about anything that occurs within the game. As far as banning/cancelling someone for something that CCP doesn't like, thats all within their legal boundries and no one can do anything about it. Its sorta like the "at will" laws that we have in the US which state that you dont have a reason to fire someone except that it applies to a game license instead of employment.
With great power comes great responsibility...and hawt cyborz! |
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 07:51:00 -
[59]
Can somebody explain in english what is the discussion about? Lawsuits for what? Somebody mad about getting ganked or what? Please, give me an example of what in the world could people possibly sue CCP for. What can a judge rule? Somebody want to take his POS bug issues before federal court? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |