EA: banning you from games you purchased for negative forum posts

[smackababy]

Those terms have been in software licenses for about 60 years. Yes, they are legal and will hold up in court.

For example, here's the Supreme Court of New York ruling on a shrink wrap license. http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/brower.htm

For another example, here is the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that EULAs are enforceable. http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/...-restrictions-on-digital-content-enforceable/

So you have both a state and a federal court saying they are enforceable. If you REALLY want to learn, you can study the Uniform Commercial Code in regards to software licensing.

The first link is not near the example of what I was stating. I can't read the second link as it is blocked at work. I am fairly certain you cannot take the rights of legally purchased (and presumably ever lasting) software rights away from a customer. A service, yes, but not the software itself. EA can deny you access to DLC, patches, and other stuff but they cannot take away what you've already purchased.

 

[Nik]

If the agreement states that you're purchasing a license and the manufacturer can revoke that license, you bet your ass it's legal. You're purchasing a license to use encrypted intellectual property.

 

[smackababy]

Depends on the district you're in and on the judge presiding. I have a feeling this wouldn't go over well for EA if they knowingly disabled your software for something you said on the forums in most states.

 

[Nik]

Depends on the district you're in and on the judge presiding. I have a feeling this wouldn't go over well for EA if they knowingly disabled your software for something you said on the forums in most states.

However, considering that they did not knowingly disable dude's game access, said as much, and corrected the problem relatively quickly, and hasn't done this to one single other customer, it doesn't matter now does it.

 

[Zargon]

However, considering that they did not knowingly disable dude's game access, said as much, and corrected the problem relatively quickly, and hasn't done this to one single other customer, it doesn't matter now does it.

so their ignornace of how their own system (that they wrote?) is a good excuse for this? :hmm:

line me up to buy more of their games :awe:


beyond that your statements and theirs(? I cant get to that at work, Im extrapolating from your posts) conctadict what they had in their forum EULA, from pic in OP:

Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here:

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum and/or issues reported by fellow community members.

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.
Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.

If there are further questions or concerns, please send them to me via private message. Thank you.

End of line.

so the mistake was their policy, not their actions, unless they didnt mean to enforce their own rules, which is equally as stupid.

just admit that EA fucked up, got called on it, and is backpeddaling.

they are either lying in the original rules, or lying in their 'apology' either way they are lying just like most people in the thread believe them to be :thumbsup:


your argument that 'no one makes you buy their games' also doesnt make sense, but not buying their software doesnt make their stupid policy less stupid. just because it wont affect YOU doesnt make it not WRONG to do said actions.

 

[smackababy]

just because it wont affect YOU doesnt make it not WRONG to do said actions.

I think it does mean you can't sue them though. =( There goes my retirement!

 

[Ross Ridge]

Those terms have been in software licenses for about 60 years. Yes, they are legal and will hold up in court.

For example, here's the Supreme Court of New York ruling on a shrink wrap license. http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/brower.htm

In this example the terms in dispute didn't hold up in court. While the court ruled the plaintiff agreed to the contract by not returning the computer within 30 days, as in this case he was clearly allowed to do, ultimately it ruled the arbitration term was uninforcable because it was unreasonable.

A lawsuit against EA is very unlikely to happen in circumstances like those described in this thread, even if EA was clearly in the wrong legally. It's just not economical to sue a company for what amounts to a minor inconvience with a product that only cost $50 to begin with.

 

[Zargon]

I think it does mean you can't sue them though. =( There goes my retirement!

good point

total bummer

 

[smackababy]

In this example the terms in dispute didn't hold up in court. While the court ruled the plaintiff agreed to the contract by not returning the computer within 30 days, as in this case he was clearly allowed to do, ultimately it ruled the arbitration term was uninforcable because it was unreasonable.

A lawsuit against EA is very unlikely to happen in circumstances like those described in this thread, even if EA was clearly in the wrong legally. It's just not economical to sue a company for what amounts to a minor inconvience with a product that only cost $50 to begin with.

If it happened to a lot of people, I'm sure a lawyer would take it and a class action suit would follow through. Although, the only effect would be they'd eventually change the EULA and stop doing it to other people. No millions of dollars in suffering for anyone. =( EA would probably settle, give the people their game back and change the wording to legally ban you from the game anyway: selling and requiring you to use their login service or something and banning you from that.

 

[Nik]

so their ignornace of how their own system (that they wrote?) is a good excuse for this? :hmm:

line me up to buy more of their games :awe:


beyond that your statements and theirs(? I cant get to that at work, Im extrapolating from your posts) conctadict what they had in their forum EULA, from pic in OP:



so the mistake was their policy, not their actions, unless they didnt mean to enforce their own rules, which is equally as stupid.

just admit that EA fucked up, got called on it, and is backpeddaling.

they are either lying in the original rules, or lying in their 'apology' either way they are lying just like most people in the thread believe them to be :thumbsup:


your argument that 'no one makes you buy their games' also doesnt make sense, but not buying their software doesnt make their stupid policy less stupid. just because it wont affect YOU doesnt make it not WRONG to do said actions.

Did you ever consider that, while they may have specifically built their system to be capable of such action, that they didn't intend on disciplining the gentleman to such a degree?

Did you ever consider that, perhaps, someone simply clicked the wrong button?

Of course not, because that doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[SexyK]

FYI, when a EULA includes a term such as "we have the right to modify this agreement at any time and you will be bound by the new version," that term (and any subsequent revisions of the EULA) are not typically enforceable.

 

[smackababy]

Did you ever consider that, while they may have specifically built their system to be capable of such action, that they didn't intend on disciplining the gentleman to such a degree?

Did you ever consider that, perhaps, someone simply clicked the wrong button?

Of course not, because that doesn't fit your agenda.

The fact that they have a button which would disable my ability to play single player games is enough to warrant questioning their motives.

 

[exar333]

A good place to start for EA would be to segregate their forum accounts from their activation accounts. This would be a 'good faith' action on their part and would help quell some of these concerns around banning people for what they say. Ban then from the forum is one thing (they pay to keep it going) vs. not allowing people to play games they paid $$$ for. Just my $0.02.

 

[Zargon]

Did you ever consider that, while they may have specifically built their system to be capable of such action, that they didn't intend on disciplining the gentleman to such a degree?

Did you ever consider that, perhaps, someone simply clicked the wrong button?

Of course not, because that doesn't fit your agenda.

I would be far more concerned with EA's agenda than a consumer who doesnt like that a game company can turn off your game because you said you didnt like them.

we all see where your allegiance lies dude

the fact that they put the system in place and terms in the EULA takes away my ability to give them any 'trust' or good faith.

I dont honestly care if they did it on accident, that system shouldnt exist.

this shit is why I have NEVER played bioshock 1 or 2, even though I bought Bioshock 1.

I tried to instal it and the DRM put my machine in antirootkit lockdown.

thank god i was able to get store credit for that crap.

 

[aigomorla]

Why would they get laughed out of court when you agreed to be bound by the not-unreasonable terms and conditions of the EULA?

Nobody's forcing you to buy a physical copy since their games are also available via digital download.

Additionally, if you purchase a physical copy and want to read the EULA before installing it, you can contact EA and request a copy of their EULA in writing prior to opening the box.

However, nobody's going to do this because NOBODY IS THAT STUPID.

Plain and simple, nobody's forcing you to use EA's services, play their games, use their servers, or give them your money and there is ALWAYS a solution to whatever stupid bullshit problems that you think you're clever enough to come up with.

nik give up on the arguement.

I tried to use all your shoes in defending Intel's P65 chipset fiasco, telling everyone, you accept EULA, yada yada...

ultimately it comes down to if enough people bitch and complain thats it unfair, the courts will side with the people regardless of what legal protection they have.

Thats what the outcome ended up to be.

FYI, when a EULA includes a term such as "we have the right to modify this agreement at any time and you will be bound by the new version," that term (and any subsequent revisions of the EULA) are not typically enforceable.

And it was also said in that intel thread 90% of all EULA's is just to scare you from not taking action.

So once again... the if enough people bitch and complain about it, thats it not fair, the courts will side will the people, and its done with.

But your right.. there is no such thing as a self modifying contract, or agreement.
If it was legally bound, you would have to have rights to agree to the new contract rules.


Its like you owe me 5 yrs of slavery, however i can change that number and condition of work at any time. :\

 

[Nik]

Then don't agree to the EULA

 

[Larries]

If the agreement states that you're purchasing a license and the manufacturer can revoke that license, you bet your ass it's legal. You're purchasing a license to use encrypted intellectual property.

Is this tested in court?

Even the resell case took two court rulings to rule it out (the first ruling actually allows you to resell software even EULA stated it cannot).

Just because EULA exists in the past 60 years doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be tested and overruled in court.

Especially if you purchased the license legally, then the manufacturer revoke your license immediately without compensation.

In their EULA, they didn't say that you cannot say negative opinions in their forums. So, the clause they rely on will be 'at their sole discretion'.

 

[Nik]

If you'd read the thread, you'll see that it is.

 

[Veliko]

Did you ever consider that, while they may have specifically built their system to be capable of such action, that they didn't intend on disciplining the gentleman to such a degree?

Did you ever consider that, perhaps, someone simply clicked the wrong button?

Of course not, because that doesn't fit your agenda.

- Company creates a system that links your forum account to your game account.
- Company says "A ban on your forum account can affect access to your games and DLC".
- Someone is abusive on the company forums. Company bans forum account.


No, it isn't possible that someone pressed the wrong button.

 

[taltamir]

I boycott EA, so should you.

 

[Nik]

- Company creates a system that links your forum account to your game account.
- Company says "A ban on your forum account can affect access to your games and DLC".
- Someone is abusive on the company forums. Company bans forum account.


No, it isn't possible that someone pressed the wrong button.

Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't mean that's the way it is. You guys are being freaking ridiculous.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Is this tested in court?

Even the resell case took two court rulings to rule it out (the first ruling actually allows you to resell software even EULA stated it cannot).

Just because EULA exists in the past 60 years doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be tested and overruled in court.

Especially if you purchased the license legally, then the manufacturer revoke your license immediately without compensation.

In their EULA, they didn't say that you cannot say negative opinions in their forums. So, the clause they rely on will be 'at their sole discretion'.

Contract law does not always make a lot of sense. The basics of the law are that as long as there is not a specific law against it, you can enter into an agreement for just about anything. The rule of thumb is 'Buyer Beware'. There are some specific laws intended to protect consumers from abusive behavior by companies, but I don’t think the law has really caught up to current EULA practices.

There are plenty of court cases that have upheld a company’s right to revoke a usage license for all sorts of dumb reasons. When you enter into a contract that allows one party to end the licensing agreement for any reason they want, then expect to only be allowed to use that license as long as it is profitable for them to allow you to do so.

The thing to remember is that you do not buy a game, you license the right to play it for as long as the company finds it profitable to allow you to play it. Don’t like it? Then work to change the IP laws.

Another thing, at least one court has already ruled that if you buy a game with a closed box EULA and do not accept it, the store that sold it to you is required to refund your money. So far this has mostly been ignored by the big box retailers, mainly because no one has pushed the issue. But if you were to create a stink about it the store would take the game back.

 

[Zargon]

Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't mean that's the way it is. You guys are being freaking ridiculous.

so you are the kid that plugs his ears and chants LALALALALALALALALALA until the people stop pointing out what he doesnt want to hear

 

[Nik]

so you are the kid that plugs his ears and chants LALALALALALALALALALA until the people stop pointing out what he doesnt want to hear

Do you have anything to add to the conversation? Or, as a method to concede defeat, are you simply immaturely throwing insults with no point other than levy personal attacks against someone who has proven time and time again in this thread that he's right?

 

[Shmee]

Man I was pretty pissed off when activision took down the quake wars stats. but this...also, Isnt there a rule on AT against openly attacking members? I think everyone here should just take a chill pill. agree to disagree, but no need to call each other stupid and morons.