That's how all the buffalo died. They kept screwing it up and no one invented white out yet.
Well, that was really ignorant and stupid of him, b/c the Constitution is actually a piece of animal hide.
There are bans, and then there are bans. One user of BioWare's forums found himself facing one of the latter after having his account suspended for allegedly using inappropriate language in a post -- but instead of just keeping him from socializing temporarily, it prevented his PC copy of Dragon Age 2, purchased online, from running entirely.
EA has acknowledged that this actually happened to the affected user, but calls it an error. While it says it intended to temporarily ban the individual for violating the forum code of conduct, "there was an error in the system that accidentally suspended a user's entire account."
"Immediately upon learning of the glitch, EA took steps to restore the user's macro account and apologized for the inconvenience," the publisher told Joystiq. What it didn't say is what -- if any -- steps are being taken to prevent similar mega-bans from happening in the future.
We'll have to see. I'm fairly certain it'll be laughed out of court, but I doubt EA would let a case go that far. Even if EA had a guy at best buy making people sign the EULA it's unlikely they'd be able to uphold the denying of people to use the product they bought because of activity on their forums. It's kind of sad to see people arguing that well they put it in a contract so it must hold up... that's just not how this stuff works. Companies of all walks and types put tons of stipulations on their sales that they know will never hold up in court even if they made a blood pact with their customers, but they put it in anyway hoping idiots will never challenge it.
Why would they get laughed out of court when you agreed to be bound by the not-unreasonable terms and conditions of the EULA?
It's actually a good idea. Cut down the trolling in online gaming commmunities.
Because a hidden "you automatically agree to any changes we make to this contract" clause is not a valid tactic.
Note also that EULAs tend to say "void where prohibited" and then describe a bunch of stuff prohibited everywhere.
that being said, crappy judges have upheld EULAs before
Uh, bud, that is why I actually raised it.uh... the whole "we can change this when we want to and don't have to tell you but you can request a copy at any time" thing happens all the time, bud. Read any EULA you've ever signed. I'm willing to bet you've never read ANY of them that you've signed.
Two willing parties agree to an agreement that doesn't violate any municipal, state, or federal law? Why would a judge get involved, other than if one of them doesn't uphold their side of the agreement?
Fuck, even a verbal agreement stands in civil court.
You know how in real life if you were standing next to the guy and you made a not so nice comment about him and he turns to you and punches you in the face? Well, that is what happened to this guy. EA turned to him online and punched him in the face. Not saying I support EA (because I think it way over reacted) but that is what happens when you break their EULA and insult them in a forum. Just because something is online or in public does not give you complete immunity under the constitution.
The situation would have to first start with an agreement between the two parties where the one party agrees that being punched in the face can be part of the consequences of his actions.
Actually it is a perfect analogy.The whole punching thing isn't a good analogy.
EA's banning him from their property (servers) is not illegal. If the counter-piracy measures they've taken involve account verification on their servers to play their games, you're shit out of luck.
You can jump up and down until you're blue in the face about this, but you're stupidly and obviously wrong.
Nik just go and get a room with stanley woo and friends, its clear you love them that much
EA is "banning" from from playing a game he purchased. In other word they are stealing the game from him.
It has nothing to do with "counter piracy", in fact it is the main reason piracy exists in the first place.