XBOX360 Ban (modded consoles) class action lawsuit - update - I got my stuff back :D [Archive] - Page 2

Pikkon

11-20-2009, 06:36 PM

It's not a matter of being "better than everyone else" - I think you've somehow inferred that on your own here. I was playing legit games on a modded console.

My point is I did something that was technically feasible but that they didn't want me to do - upgrade my hard drive on my own. And yes, they have a "rule" about me doing so. I still don't feel the rule is fair, however. But what can you do?

Well MS does not ban a 360 for a homemade hdd,from you other post it sounds like you flashed your dvd drive,if so thats why you got banned,it doesn't matter if you play legit games or not.

skaar

11-20-2009, 06:41 PM

j_factor

11-20-2009, 06:47 PM

I never said he was using the larger hard drive to play pirated games. I just said that by installing a larger hard drive he was violating the TOS. Do I think people should be able to use any hard drive they want? Sure. However Microsoft does not, and since it is their system, why are they not allowed to set the rules?

(this is in response not just to the above, but to all invoking the TOS in discussion)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's only a TOS for Xbox Live, not the Xbox 360 itself, which isn't a service. It is improper for a TOS violation to incur consequences that reach beyond the service to which it relates -- in other words, the 360 hardware is out of its bounds. For certain products this is not the case, when it's a device purchased for a service as its primary purpose, but Live is secondary on the 360. I also find it a bit thorny that Microsoft requires any online connection to go through Live (with a membership), even if you have no intention of subscribing to their service.

I wonder if you'll get the same effect if you install a 360 firmware update off a CD-R to a modded console.

As an aside, does the TOS even say "we'll gimp your console in various and sundry ways if you modify it in any way"? When the news of this first broke, their spokesperson only acknowledged that they were "suspending these modded consoles from Xbox LIVE", they did not say they were taking additional punitive action. Where in the TOS does it say they will take such action? I find it hard to believe that such a thing could be contained in the TOS without there having already been a big stink about it on the internet.

If you don't want to pay the prices Microsoft has set, then do not buy a hard drive for your 360.

This almost sounds like an anti-trust violation. I don't believe Microsoft actually has a right to lock out competitors from the Xbox 360 accessory market. They can manufacture their console in such a way that unlicensed accessories are more difficult to produce, but they shouldn't be able to "zap" unapproved hard drives or disable the console's functionality (they can, however, void the warranty). This really seems contrary to the spirit of Atari v. Activision, Atari v. Nintendo, Sega v. Accolade, et al.

Rob2600

11-20-2009, 07:35 PM

If you don't want to pay the prices Microsoft has set - then don't. Speak with your wallet. The fact that people are using illegal hard drives just shows Microsoft that people want to play their 360.

I agree, but this seems to be an extremely difficult concept for many people to grasp.

TonyTheTiger

11-20-2009, 07:41 PM

Sure they can. In the case of the user's data being corrupted, it could simply be eliminating data that cannot have it's digital signature validated properly. XBL and the 360 are closed systems, so any data that is there without a valid signature was more than likely put there by means excluded by the TOS and I'm sure there is a provision for removing it. It is possible that a court may actually rule that this was a step too far, but again, you are not giving the MS lawyers much credit. They know what's going on because they are the best that money can buy. MS wouldn't have made this move without knowing exactly where it could and likely will go.

I'm not saying that what Microsoft is doing would constitute unconscionable behavior in the courts. I was responding to your assertion that a car dealership could slash somebody's tires because they changed the gas tank. I actually don't know if what Microsoft did is 100% within it's rights. The problem is that nobody really does. That's my point. Lawyers can only pontificate on what may or may not be legal based on the precedent already established. But in this area very little has been written in stone.

There are limits, but I'm not seeing anything in the stories about the purported lawsuit which make that claim. It seems like they are taking some type of timing conspiracy approach to the lawsuit that Microsoft somehow did this on the eve of MW2 launching so they could force people to pay to rejoin Xbox Live.

You're absolutely right. Even if a lawsuit could have merit I don't think this one in particular does. At least not based on how it's presented in the article. I've just been saying that for everybody arguing that what MS did is 100% absolutely correct under every possible legal avenue, well, we don't know.

Rob2600

11-20-2009, 07:50 PM

I'll come from your school of awful examples: my car came stock with a gas tank that holds 2/3 of a gallon of gas. I can use it, but it runs out of gas several times before I get to work. However, I can buy a better gas tank that holds 5 gallons, but it costs 3x the price of a normal gas tank like the one that comes in kupomogli's car. This better tank still won't get me to work without running out. However, skaar offers me a normal priced gas tank that holds even more gas to replace the midget sized one I just got stock.

By your rules, I should be a good little boy and run out of gas on a daily basis.

If Company X's gas tank rule is so idiotic, you could try to circumvent the rule and risk getting caught...or you could say "Screw you Company X, I'm going to buy Company Z's car instead."

Wouldn't that be better?

Icarus Moonsight

11-20-2009, 08:17 PM

If the rule is arbitrary, I say break away. Well, pay your taxes, of course. Don't go to prison just for a principle. Still, I have this silly metric called 'a valid reason' why I should or shouldn't do this or that. I might get a modded 360, but I will certainly never buy a new one now. I don't want them getting the wrong idea or getting any of my money if they're going to continue to act this way.

I'll continue to LOL @ MS butt-lickers, for some time to come I'm sure. "OMG! You didn't buy an official HDD?!? Throw them in the rape room!" ROFL

WTF...

portnoyd

11-20-2009, 08:22 PM

If Company X's gas tank rule is so idiotic, you could try to circumvent the rule and risk getting caught...or you could say "Screw you Company X, I'm going to buy Company Z's car instead."

Wouldn't that be better?

Maybe? I did say it was an awful example. :P

98PaceCar

11-20-2009, 10:11 PM

I'm not saying that what Microsoft is doing would constitute unconscionable behavior in the courts. I was responding to your assertion that a car dealership could slash somebody's tires because they changed the gas tank. I actually don't know if what Microsoft did is 100% within it's rights. The problem is that nobody really does. That's my point. Lawyers can only pontificate on what may or may not be legal based on the precedent already established. But in this area very little has been written in stone.

As was stated above, it's really a bad example. Not to risk running this discussion off in an unintended direction, but there is a recent example in the car world with a similar type of thing. Nissan provided a feature on the latest GTR that if you used it, you would void your warranty on the vehicle or at least the transmission. Not quite the same situation, but the owners were agreeing to a TOS when the vehicle was purchased whereby when using this feature (launch control), they were knowingly voiding their warranty. I haven't followed it much recently, but as of the last time I looked Nissan had not changed their stance, nor had they been forced to despite attempted or threatened lawsuits. This is a bit of a tricky area for me to agree to as they are providing a feature that can knowingly lead to damage, but we all know that few people read what they are agreeing to before the sign on the dotted line. Is it legal for a manufacturer to provide a dangerous function on a device and what recourse should the end user have if that device is used and causes problems? Where does personal responsibility take over?

Again, I feel it's a question of what is in the TOS that the users agreed to and I hope that whatever lawsuits are filed come to the same conclusion. It will be interesting to watch though as this could have some bearing on ownership of digitally distributed media and what happens in the event of hardware failures leading to loss.

(side note, for a bit more reading on the GTR thing, go here.. http://jalopnik.com/5061221/gt+r-owner-busts-tranny-using-launch-control-nissan-claims-issue-not-covered-under-warranty)

Raedon

11-21-2009, 04:26 PM

As was stated above, it's really a bad example. Not to risk running this discussion off in an unintended direction, but there is a recent example in the car world with a similar type of thing. Nissan provided a feature on the latest GTR that if you used it, you would void your warranty on the vehicle or at least the transmission. Not quite the same situation, but the owners were agreeing to a TOS when the vehicle was purchased whereby when using this feature (launch control), they were knowingly voiding their warranty. I haven't followed it much recently, but as of the last time I looked Nissan had not changed their stance, nor had they been forced to despite attempted or threatened lawsuits. This is a bit of a tricky area for me to agree to as they are providing a feature that can knowingly lead to damage, but we all know that few people read what they are agreeing to before the sign on the dotted line. Is it legal for a manufacturer to provide a dangerous function on a device and what recourse should the end user have if that device is used and causes problems? Where does personal responsibility take over?

Again, I feel it's a question of what is in the TOS that the users agreed to and I hope that whatever lawsuits are filed come to the same conclusion. It will be interesting to watch though as this could have some bearing on ownership of digitally distributed media and what happens in the event of hardware failures leading to loss.

(side note, for a bit more reading on the GTR thing, go here.. http://jalopnik.com/5061221/gt+r-owner-busts-tranny-using-launch-control-nissan-claims-issue-not-covered-under-warranty)

The price of a new transmission is so much more then a 360. Beyond the price consideration, Nissan basically placed a big red DO NOT PUSH THE SHINY CANDY-LIKE BUTTON that will void your warranty on their car IMHO.

Rickstilwell1

11-21-2009, 04:51 PM

Maybe banned Xbox Live-ers will retaliate by going PS3 free network and get it so there are actually plenty of users online all the time. I still can't find a partner for Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit any time I check. I think online gamers only play FPS games?

s1lence

11-21-2009, 05:26 PM

I actually want a banned 360 so I can have my kids on a system other then my "good" ones.

Gozer

11-21-2009, 05:31 PM

Microsoft comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDEdKzAZgko&feature=related) on modified console bans.

CDiablo

11-21-2009, 07:18 PM

I still can't find a partner for Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit any time I check. I think online gamers only play FPS games?

TBH, it seems if you dont play a most games online within the first 3-6 months the community disappears, save for the big titles.

skaar

11-21-2009, 07:41 PM

Microsoft comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDEdKzAZgko&feature=related) on modified console bans.

hahahaha awesome.

Icarus Moonsight

11-21-2009, 10:32 PM

Wait, there's more! Here's the carrot (http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/snozberries.html) that comes after the [ban] stick. LOL

C-c-c-c-convo breaker! :p

ScourDX

11-24-2009, 12:44 PM

Datel is suing Microsoft for 3rd party memory card crackdown.

source (http://kotaku.com/5411509/microsoft-sued-over-memory-card-crackdown)

Namnuta

11-24-2009, 02:37 PM

The lawsuit has no ground. Modded console = %100 pirate, there is no other reason to mod your dvd firmware. I think they were a little harsh if they did ban people for modded harddrives. But its they network, there TOS. Dont like it, buy a PS3 where you can use any HD you want. If they allowed HD modding, thay could open it up for many hacks and cheating in there closed network.

Everyone who was banned needs to suck it up. You took the risk, and got caught. To bad, so sad.

Anyone who actually thinks MS is going to feel any legal pains from this is deluded.

^^^^^^^^^^Datel made unlicensed products, there legal threat is just a publicity stunt, and holds no water.

MASTERWEEDO

11-24-2009, 03:20 PM

MASTERWEEDO

11-24-2009, 03:54 PM

You felt like you were too important to have to buy an official 360 hard drive, so yes you felt like you were better than everyone and that the rules did not apply to you. You circumvented the rules that everyone else has to follow.

I kinda see this whole in a different way, say with drugs. I was in a bad car wreck a few years ago, all I ever got was oxycodone. I didnt like it, it didnt work(crushed nerves) and made me an asshole, so I smoke weed for my pain. Now last year I got arrested for possession, explained myself to the judge(with pics from the wreck), and got 21 days in jail. I dont understand how its ok for me to be on hard addictive drugs(oxycodone) and not ok to use a plant that has no physically addictive properties and many health benefits. its just about gouging the consumer. I have to buy the pills, but I can grow my own weed(havent tried yet, moving to Portland so i can). What would you rather be, a junkie, or a stoner? cuz when that doctor thats handin out those pills goes away, you gotta get something for pain from somewhere.

Push Upstairs

11-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Kinda like the Game Genie was an unlicensed product that helped people cheat?

Only Nintendo did that, Sega licensed it.

Zthun

11-24-2009, 07:07 PM

Well MS does not ban a 360 for a homemade hdd,from you other post it sounds like you flashed your dvd drive,if so thats why you got banned,it doesn't matter if you play legit games or not.

This. Modding your console is not illegal. If I swapped out the LED lights to turn them from green to blue, that's not illegal. The reason for the ban was the modification of Microsoft's software. When you flashed your DVD drive, you probably used a 3rd party app to do it which had a disassembled hacked MS Bios. You can't do that. THAT'S why you got banned.

Ponyone

11-24-2009, 10:42 PM

Anyone post a Nelson Muntz Ha! Ha! pic yet? Because if ever he was needed, it would be here.

Icarus Moonsight

11-25-2009, 12:45 AM

If you were banned, read it as MS doesn't want your money and oblige them their preference. Not everyone who mods is a software pirate. You bought the damn thing, you can take a shit on it if you want and MS can ban you from their servers if they like. If you buy another console just to get back on LIVE, you're an idiot and a masochist.

MarioMania

11-25-2009, 02:46 AM

Is Microsoft doing this lock out with Controllers??

skaar

11-25-2009, 10:24 AM

Hey I never said I personally did not deserve to be banned ;)

camarotuner

11-28-2009, 11:37 PM

j_factor

11-29-2009, 02:18 AM

But by that same logic, if you then use that pc to sign up for a service (let's say wow) and there are specific rules in the TOS that says you can't do "X", then you do "X", you should be held accountable for being dumb enough to do it.

But if WOW corrupted people's entire hard drives for TOS violations, I think people would be justifiably angered.

Berserker

11-29-2009, 02:27 AM

What are we arguing here? You buy a system (any system) it's yours. But Live is microsofts. When you sign up for live you have to agree to a very long TOS agreement. If you didn't read it, sucks to be you. But in there are provisions to allow microsoft to do this. If you sign up for their service, read (or ignore) the rules of that service, then complain when your violations of that service cause negative things to happen to you, you're an idiot.

This is just another example of modern american society where "it's no my fault because..." when in reality it IS that persons fault for not reading things carefully, doing whatever they feel like, then being mad when they get called on it.

Oh and as someone else has already said here, if you wanted a piece of gaming hardware that you can modify and do what you want with and no one cares, should have bought a pc. But by that same logic, if you then use that pc to sign up for a service (let's say wow) and there are specific rules in the TOS that says you can't do "X", then you do "X", you should be held accountable for being dumb enough to do it.

The issue wasn't that they banned him from Live - the issue was that they corrupted his hard drive, his save files, and all the games he legitimately paid for.

No one here is saying that you shouldn't be banned from logging into Live if you violate the Live TOS. People should be held accountable for violations of the terms they agree to... but where does the boundary lie?

If you run a red light, should the cop write you a ticket, or burn your house down? Do you deserve to have your property destroyed because you did something wrong, or should the punishment fit the crime?

Icarus Moonsight

11-29-2009, 03:09 AM

Violating a TOS is a breach of contract, not a crime. Willful destruction of property on the other hand... ;)

Break TOS, and MS owes you nothing in regards to the service that the TOS covers. I'd say MS has caused damage and needs to own up for the corruption of data... but, I haven't read the license agreement for marketplace downloads. So, even then, one may not have contractual grounds... Actually, they may be contractually excluded from recovery. This is why it's important to know what you are agreeing to.

Icarus Moonsight

11-29-2009, 03:15 AM

Is Microsoft doing this lock out with Controllers??

Yes. If you have a modded wired, it will disconnect from your system at night and strangle you in your sleep. If you have a wireless, it will do similar, at night, but instead pump you full of 5v current from the Lith-Ion battery until your heart stops. Good night! :D

Flack

11-29-2009, 07:35 AM

The issue wasn't that they banned him from Live - the issue was that they corrupted his hard drive, his save files, and all the games he legitimately paid for.

No one here is saying that you shouldn't be banned from logging into Live if you violate the Live TOS. People should be held accountable for violations of the terms they agree to... but where does the boundary lie?

If you run a red light, should the cop write you a ticket, or burn your house down? Do you deserve to have your property destroyed because you did something wrong, or should the punishment fit the crime?

If you run enough red lights, they may impound your car and eventually take your license.

The crime here, if I understand it, is more than people violated the TOS for Live; by modding the 360, you have violated the license you agreed upon when you were using the 360 itself.

Not that I agree that that should be legal; I just think that'll be Microsoft's stance if this ever went to court.

Diatribal Deity

11-29-2009, 10:40 AM

"Microsoft reserves complete and sole discretion with respect to the operation of the Service. Microsoft may, among other things: (a) restrict or limit access to the Service; (b) retrieve information from the original Xbox, Xbox 360 console, personal computer, and any connected peripheral device used to log onto the Service as necessary to operate and protect the security of the Service, and to enforce this contract; and (c) upgrade, modify, withdraw, suspend, or discontinue any functionality or feature of the Service, any game or other content available or accessible through the Service, or any hardware or software associated with the Service or with an original Xbox or Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, from time to time without notice, which may involve the automatic download of related software directly to your original Xbox, Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, including software that prevents you from accessing the Service, playing pirated games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices."

I really do not have a clear opinion on this one way or another, but as a user I did RTFM. That last sentence really underscores the extent of their disclaimer as it specifically states that their "bullet" will ultimately prevent you from using an unauthorized hardware peripheral device regardless of the final outcome. To think they would have some type of intelligent magic bullet given the nature of their intent, would be a bit naive.

Why use smart bullets when you can just drop a nuke.

Berserker

11-29-2009, 05:20 PM

(c) upgrade, modify, withdraw, suspend, or discontinue any functionality or feature of the Service, any game or other content available or accessible through the Service, or any hardware or software associated with the Service or with an original Xbox or Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, from time to time without notice, which may involve the automatic download of related software directly to your original Xbox, Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, including software that prevents you from accessing the Service, playing pirated games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices."

Yeah, I figured as much. Looks like you were dead-on, Rob. If anything I guess this only illustrates what you really open yourself up to when the software and hardware you're using is controlled by a single entity.

Either buy physical, buy directly from the developer, or if no other options are available, buy through Steam, because at least that's still only software. That's my take anyway.

Poofta!

11-29-2009, 08:02 PM

screw them i hope they fail. thats what they get for pirating.

Icarus Moonsight

11-30-2009, 01:34 AM

Icarus Moonsight

11-30-2009, 03:20 AM

So the lesson to take from that is violation of property rights is fine? It didn't stop piracy, just took it out of online multiplayer and put a batch of pirates (not representative of all the booted users, but *shrug* oh well, tough crackers Nancy!) outside of LIVE service. Someone with an affected system would have to buy another to play online. If I was one, I'd get a PS3 and play those online games on it and keep my modded 360 offline. Or, not buy a new system, and just use the original 360 offline. I wouldn't buy a new 360 plus more games when I couldn't use purchased dl games on my original system. There is a principle at play here, it seems that so many are used to blindly following a rule that they will cut their own throat if the right person told them to, or made a somewhat shacky argument as to how it's 'the right thing' or even more stupid, pseudo-signed a contract to do so, if condition X occurs.

By reading this post, you have surrendered all rights of property to me. Sorry, it's a rule. I'll expect my stuff delivered by the end of the year. Trust me, I'll make a killing on resale, so it's completely ethical. :D

Porksta

11-30-2009, 10:01 AM

Look at it this way, so many things are connective now days... Take a car. Some have built-in internet capability others have remote access features, such as On-Star. Now you buy a car, cash - clear title, and there is a license agreement (Terms of Service) that states if you replace any part outside of the official designation (discount and off brand parts, aftermarket performance parts, etc), or alter and/or install custom software (ie software tuning) - your car's start system will be permanently disabled, or repo'ed.

How does one pirate a car again? It's all misdirection, it's not anti-piracy, it's anti-property.

The thing is, cars would not do that. What happens if someone doesn't like those terms? Instead of buying the Toyota Matrix, the go to Honda and buy an Accord that doesn't have those terms. A car company knows that if they do something like put those kind of terms on a contract, you will take your business elsewhere. Microsoft is smart and realizes there is no direct alternative to a 360. So they charge whatever the market can sustain. Obviously the market is quite capable of sustaining hundred dollar 120GB hard drives. Again the only solution if you do not like Microsoft's pricing is to - any guesses? - NOT BUY FROM MICROSOFT. I just can't understand how people cannot understand that.

Icarus Moonsight

11-30-2009, 10:25 AM

Porksta

11-30-2009, 11:32 AM

True enough. Call me nuts, but usually I demand that I own the things I trade my money for. Silly, I know. There are a few caveats, I have bought some DSi/WiiWare and VC stuff. But I'm sticking to things that are only available in aetherware form or where there is substantial savings involved over a used market physical copy. And thankfully, I haven't bought a 360 yet.

Correct - you own the 360. It still works as a 360 should. You are also still allowed to use the hard drive. You are just no longer allowed to use Xbox Live. This is why you shouldn't try to get around rules. It always bites you in the ass.

ScourDX

11-30-2009, 01:04 PM

Porksta

11-30-2009, 01:08 PM

Microsoft doesn't want complete control of the 360 - just of Live. Again, you are more than welcome to modify your 360 anyway you want - just do not try to access Live with it.

Icarus Moonsight

11-30-2009, 02:40 PM

Correct - you own the 360. It still works as a 360 should.

If I am to understand correctly, at least as skaar pointed out, that's not the case. They corrupted his HDD. Recall how the Rootkit fiasco went down?

Porksta

11-30-2009, 02:51 PM

So the 360 doesn't work? He is unable to put a disc in the drive and play Modern Warfare 2? How does a corrupted HDD affect the playability of his 360?

I have no idea what a rootkit is. From looking at Wikipedia it does some stuff that I cannot see how is related to an Xbox 360.

j_factor

11-30-2009, 03:24 PM

Microsoft doesn't want complete control of the 360 - just of Live. Again, you are more than welcome to modify your 360 anyway you want - just do not try to access Live with it.

This would be fine with me if they didn't "lock in" the 360 to Live exclusively. You can't download extra content without going through Live. You can't even download a system update through the console without first having a Live account. The 360 Netflix service and stuff like that are all via Live too, and for no good reason. I mean really, what does Twitter have to do with their online gaming service? The thing has an ethernet port, but you can't simply connect to the internet with it, you can only connect to Live. They even locked out tunnelling software by design (although the Xlink Kai people managed to achieve 360 compatibility, it doesn't work well).

So the 360 doesn't work? He is unable to put a disc in the drive and play Modern Warfare 2? How does a corrupted HDD affect the playability of his 360?

:hmm: The 360 also has digitally distributed games... which are stored on one's hard drive. So if you get banned, games that you paid for don't work, and you can't get them back without getting another system (since the games can only be downloaded through Live).

TonyTheTiger

11-30-2009, 03:24 PM

This is why you shouldn't try to get around rules. It always bites you in the ass.

This sound bite of yours is getting tiresome. Just because a rule/policy/contract/etc. does exist doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing and should be allowed to stand. Value isn't automatically inferred on something merely through the act of mere existence.

Porksta

11-30-2009, 04:24 PM

:hmm: The 360 also has digitally distributed games... which are stored on one's hard drive. So if you get banned, games that you paid for don't work, and you can't get them back without getting another system (since the games can only be downloaded through Live).

Sucks for the guy breaking the rules then doesn't it?

This sound bite of yours is getting tiresome.

The truth hurts - like I said before, if you do not like the rules, there are ways to fight it. Breaking the rules is not one of those ways.

I don't know anything about Steam, but if Steam bans you do you keep the games you purchased? Are they only downloaded from Steam or must you activate Steam to play them?

The 1 2 P

11-30-2009, 04:38 PM

The less cheaters on XBL the better. Now if only we could also get rid of all the sexist, racist homophobes. Microsoft should add that to their terms of service, though I have no idea how they would word it:?

Porksta

11-30-2009, 04:46 PM

I don't know - I think you summed it up quite well.

Anyone remember that story about a guy playing some NBA game and whooping this black guys ass, then the black guy sends him a threatening message and a picture of him giving the finger? Whatever happened to that guy?

s1lence

11-30-2009, 04:49 PM

Somewhat related Xbox360 news. With the recent Datel suing Microsoft (MS), MS banned 1 million users and now MS wants to have BBC free iplayer released to subscribed customer; MS wants absolute control of it's Xbox360.

Link (http://stuff.tv/News/BBC-iPlayer-hits-Xbox-360-roadblock/13717/)

Thats more because of the tax laws in the UK that allow the streaming of BBC tv for free when MS wants to include it as part of the gold subscription which would not comply with the UK tax code. Once again their service, their choice of how they want to pay/charge/use it.

TonyTheTiger

11-30-2009, 04:50 PM

The truth hurts - like I said before, if you do not like the rules, there are ways to fight it.

Um...like a lawsuit? Isn't that what this is all about? Besides, this isn't a "rule." It's a policy. In fact, it's not even a policy. It's a contract. And the law, the real "rules" you seem to love to throw around, is very thin here so we actually don't even know what the "rules" are. It's entirely possible Microsoft is breaking them. But when you go around with this hard lined "follow the rules!" mantra with literally no qualification, as if Microsoft has any legal authority and what they say goes without any form of rebuttal, you sound like fucking Judge Dredd.

Porksta

11-30-2009, 05:21 PM

Microsoft is allowed to say whatever they want and what they say does go - Live is their property. If Joe decides to only let men access this site, and bans women pretending to be men, he is more than welcome to as it is his site. Now also assuming he owns the servers, etc.

You said it yourself - it is a contract. By accepting the TOS you are bound to obey them. if you do not, Microsoft has every right to ban you. What about this do you not understand?

j_factor

11-30-2009, 08:52 PM

Sucks for the guy breaking the rules then doesn't it?

"The rules" (that Microsoft decides) are not paramount. There are limits of reasonableness. The rules themselves are reasonable, but Microsoft's chosen penalty is not.

I mean, are you completely against the concept of consumer protection? Yes you can always take your business elsewhere, but once you've already spent your money, you're entitled to certain rights with regard to the product you've purchased. Microsoft doesn't have the right to steamroll its paying customers for doing something that displeases them.

Microsoft is allowed to say whatever they want and what they say does go - Live is their property. If Joe decides to only let men access this site, and bans women pretending to be men, he is more than welcome to as it is his site. Now also assuming he owns the servers, etc.

But if I purchased something from Joe, he's not allowed to seize or damage it just because he's decided to ban me from his site.

Porksta

11-30-2009, 11:10 PM

Microsoft isn't seizing or damaging anything.

TonyTheTiger

11-30-2009, 11:41 PM

Well they did delete the dude's save files. Whether or not you want to call that "damage" is up to you. Same goes for all the other little issues that render the affected 360 a hassle to use. Microsoft's actions are clearly not limited to rendering the console incapable of accessing online play in the games that support it. There's obviously a lot of collateral damage here. Don't pretend like that doesn't exist.

Microsoft is allowed to say whatever they want and what they say does go - Live is their property.

But the Xbox 360 is not. At least not according to anybody with at least a small libertarian streak.

By accepting the TOS you are bound to obey them.

Not if the terms are unconscionable. And if the penalties for breach are unreasonable, tortious, or illegal then they can't be imposed.

I don't think the terms of the TOS are unconscionable but it's not out of the question that the penalty could be tortious if an affected 360 can be considered "damaged."

What about this do you not understand?

Just because a policy is in place does not mean it can be enforced. What about this do you not understand? At this point I don't even care whether or not Microsoft is in the right. I'm simply finding your mindless Judge Dredd nonsense frustrating.

Icarus Moonsight

11-30-2009, 11:55 PM

The Final Solution was a policy... Chew on that for a bit. Apply your proposed principle in that instance and ponder away. Hard to reconcile huh?

Porksta

12-01-2009, 12:03 AM

But the Xbox 360 is not. At least not according to anybody with at least a small libertarian streak.

Again, how did Microsoft damage their 360s?

The Final Solution was a policy - if it was not followed, the people were punished. What's your point?

Icarus Moonsight

12-01-2009, 12:06 AM

O_O You made it for me?

Wow...

Flack

12-01-2009, 10:49 AM

EFF has posted a great article regarding Xbox360 bans and TOS rules in general.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/xbox-live-bans-cautionary-tale-tos

TonyTheTiger

12-01-2009, 11:29 AM

Again, how did Microsoft damage their 360s?

The Final Solution was a policy - if it was not followed, the people were punished. What's your point?

O_O You made it for me?

Wow...

I am equally speechless.

s1lence

12-01-2009, 11:35 AM

Gary Shandling

badinsults

12-01-2009, 12:22 PM

Yep, we have someone saying that people were justified supporting the Holocaust because it was the law at the time.

I say thread over.

scooterb23

12-01-2009, 12:48 PM

Is there a level beyond Godwin's Law? Because we've blown right past basic Godwin's Law this time...

badinsults

12-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Is there a level beyond Godwin's Law? Because we've blown right past basic Godwin's Law this time...

Yeah, Godwin's Law was invoked, but usually you don't have people actually agreeing with the Nazis.

Seriously Porksta, wtf?

Porksta

12-01-2009, 02:31 PM

I think you all are blowing this out of proportion. When did I say I agreed with the Nazis?

badinsults

12-01-2009, 02:51 PM

I think you all are blowing this out of proportion. When did I say I agreed with the Nazis?

The Final Solution was a policy - if it was not followed, the people were punished. What's your point?

There.

Porksta

12-01-2009, 02:52 PM

So when did I say I agreed with the Nazis?

Soviet Conscript

12-01-2009, 03:15 PM

I'm simply finding your mindless Judge Dredd nonsense frustrating.

lol, i though the exact same thing

So when did I say I agreed with the Nazis?

you didn't. porksta only stated the situation. he never said he agreed with the policy. only that it was in place and those that did not follow it were punished.

being lawful neutral myself (to make a nerdy D&D refrence) i understand and appriciate Porkstas stance. BUT i find it to inflexable and have to disagree to a point.

with microsofts TOS they have the complete right to ban a user from the service for a breach of the TOS. $50 or $1000 they have the right to deny refund as well as far as i'm concerned, BUT the right of microsoft to delete or corrupt saves or damage the acual hardware (if they are) is beyond thier right. there, thats my 2 cents.

camarotuner

12-01-2009, 03:36 PM

OK so the official argument is that yes MS can ban your ass from Live but that deleting the guys hard drive was just mean? But the TOS says that MS can screw with the hardware if it feels like it's protecting it's assets? So wouldn't deleting the hard drive count? Unless it made the hard drive unusable the end user didn't really suffer any financial loss or anything. I doubt "losing my save files sucked" is going to work well as the basis for a lawsuit against MS and their billion dollar attorney division.

Yeah it sets a bad social precedent. Yeah I hate the idea of someone screwing with my property. But if we are all dumb enough to sign up for these things without reading the contract? What if Honda decided that if you modify their car while under financing from their financial division they are allowed to make the car inoperable until the car is paid for. Then you could do whatever you wanted with it? Well, I wouldn't buy a Honda. If MS's TOS sucks so much, go buy a PS3, a WII, or an Atari 2600 for all it matters. Just don't buy the Xbox. Eventually MS will alter their policies or lose it's customer base. But people won't. They'll buy it anyways. Bitch and whine, but buy it anyways. Bitch and whine doesn't bother them. They have your money. If you want change, stop giving them the money.

Oh and dude, siding with Nazi's following orders and going along with the Holocaust? Really? REALLY? I've got nothing.

Porksta

12-01-2009, 03:51 PM

Oh and dude, siding with Nazi's following orders and going along with the Holocaust? Really? REALLY? I've got nothing.

I'm not siding with anything. I am simply stating that regardless of what the law/rule/policy states and what it does, it is still the law/rule/policy. Being such, you have to follow it. Do I agree with the new health care policy that is taking shape? No, but if it becomes law, I will have no choice but to follow it.

The fact of the matter is that you agreed to follow the rules of Xbox Live by stating "Yes, I have read the TOS and agree with what has been said". If you did not want to follow them and modify your console, then why the hell did you agree to the ruling?

badinsults

12-01-2009, 04:05 PM

Zthun

12-01-2009, 04:22 PM

Of all the people here with the 'MS is right, you're wrong, go fuck yourself' attitude, I can probably bet that not a single one of them read the contract. If the deed happened to them, they would be shouting and crying the 'fuck Microsoft' dance themselves.

Sounds like a bunch of hypocrites to me. Nobody reads those contracts. Seriously, who buys something only to click I disagree on the TOS screen. Now what? You're not getting a refund. You HAVE to click I agree to continue. Don't give MS money? That's kind of hard considering you have to buy their product to actually read the contract.

Banning from Live - OK, that's reasonable.
Destroying saved games - That's just crap, even if it is in the contract. And no, I DIDN'T FUCKING READ IT, I JUST CLICKED AGREE LIKE THE REST OF THE 99% OF THE POPULATION.

I think I'm going to go develop some software where you have to click I disagree in order to continue on the license agreement screen. Clicking I agree will give you the middle finger.

The 1 2 P

12-01-2009, 04:55 PM

I agree with Microsoft because the majority of people modding their consoles were doing it to A) play pirated software and B) cheat on XBL. Read that again. I said the majority, not everyone. I know for a fact that skaar was playing legit software because he buys alot of it from me. But he knew the consequences of his actions playing a modded console on XBL.

Then we have the corrupting of the hard drive. I'm not really sure what to make of this. I know why they are doing it(to prevent the offending person from doing the same thing again with a different console and the same hd) but if people have legitimate purchased games on their hard drive, then shouldn't they be able to still play them on the same hd? According to Microsoft you void that right when you violate the TOS in anyway and thats exactly where this lawsuit picks up. I honestly don't think they have a chance in hell at beating Microsoft. But if nothing else, they will learn from this to read the fine print the next time they decide to mod a console.

98PaceCar

12-01-2009, 05:04 PM

Of all the people here with the 'MS is right, you're wrong, go fuck yourself' attitude, I can probably bet that not a single one of them read the contract. If the deed happened to them, they would be shouting and crying the 'fuck Microsoft' dance themselves.

The OP is the only person that I've seen admit to having been caught in this ban and he has manned up and taken responsibility for his actions. It's just too bad that others don't feel the same level of personal responsibility for their actions and would choose to litigate instead of acting like a rational adult when they breach a contract and get caught.

If you agree to a TOS or any other contract without reading it, you may well get bit and you have nobody to blame but yourself.

I do find it interesting that everybody (myself included, to a degree) is harping on the TOS. I believe that according to the DMCA, it's illegal to use copyrighted code that has been modified without the owners consent (in this case, the firmware needed to mod a 360). Wouldn't this mean that MS did everybody a favor by simply banning them and not trying to go after copyright infringement which would have been a more legally binding punishment? As much as I hate the RIAA, they have proven that it is possible to recover losses due to piracy.

TonyTheTiger

12-01-2009, 06:14 PM

I'm not siding with anything. I am simply stating that regardless of what the law/rule/policy states and what it does, it is still the law/rule/policy. Being such, you have to follow it. Do I agree with the new health care policy that is taking shape? No, but if it becomes law, I will have no choice but to follow it.

To assist Porksta, because I actually don't think he "agrees with the Nazis," I think what he is saying is more along the lines of a nihilistic argument. Granted, I find his stance absurd but what it sounds like he's saying isn't "bad law is good law" but rather "even if it is bad law, violating it leads to punishment so you have to follow it to avoid punishment." If we are only concerned with avoiding punishment, rather than arguing over whether or not that punishment is justified, then Porksta's argument would hold water. But since we're arguing whether or not Microsoft's punishment is valid, not whether the people who modded were "asking for it," Porksta is misguided.

While Porksta's argument that "even if it is bad law, violating it leads to punishment so you have to follow it to avoid punishment" in fact may be true; as in, breaking even bad laws can lead to punishments, however unjust they are, I vehemently disagree with Porksta's implication that there is no value in dissent over the punishment itself. Just because a punishment exists and will be enforced doesn't mean it should be.