How saying bad things can keep you from playing Dragon Age II

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kanluwen**

Slarg232 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:If you really need an analogy:
If you're removed for breaking rules from a private club that you had to pay entry into; you shouldn't expect to be compensated. You broke the rules--regardless of whether you 'knew the rules' or not. If they hand you paperwork before entry, always read it. Don't just skim it. Read it. It details these kinds of things pretty clearly.

Your thrown out that time, you might still be able to come back, and a club isn't as expensive as a game.

Heh.

Any club worth actually joining, like an exclusive golf club or shooting club will be far more expensive than a game.

**Requia**

Except when they toss you out of a country club they don't steal the golf clubs you bought in the pro shop.

**Kanluwen**

Requia wrote:Except when they toss you out of a country club they don't steal the golf clubs you bought in the pro shop.

Right. But that's not what you could equate DLC to--and by the by, using the word "steal" is wrong. You're trying to add an emotional tone to this story, which is patently ridiculous and just shows that you're posting more to equate EA to being some huge faceless bogeyman.
This isn't "stealing".
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.

But since you want to go with the golf club example:
You don't join a country club so you can buy golf clubs from their pro shop. You join to get access to their golf course(in this case: 'golf course'='downloadable content').

When a country club revokes your membership or bans you from their premises, that's what you lose access to. The course and anything associated with it that isn't your property.

EA didn't "steal his golf clubs"('ban his game')--they revoked his access to the "golf course"('downloadable content').

End of story.

**Slarg232**

Kanluwen wrote:This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the Law, or at least a form of a Scam, if someone pays for something and you refuse them the service they already payed for?

Not talking about this instance in general (since most of the DLC seems to be free, if you are correct), but in general.

The fact that they actually have the ability to do this..... is concerning to say the least.

**Requia**

Kanluwen wrote:
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.

It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.

If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.

**Kanluwen**

Slarg232 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the Law, or at least a form of a Scam, if someone pays for something and you refuse them the service they already paid for?

Yes and no. In this case, the EA Community and the DLC isn't a single transaction--but more like a 'membership club'.

With things of that nature, you can refuse them the service if they violate those rules and you do not have to refund them their money--you just cannot reenlist them in your membership program.

To go back to the country club example: if you're banned from the premises in March, and the next billing cycle begins in July--your payment from that time is still due, but that country club cannot charge you the cost of the next billing cycle.

Not talking about this instance in general (since most of the DLC seems to be free, if you are correct), but in general.

The only thing you'd have to pay for is the 'Exiled Prince' content--which isn't necessary, and most seem to think the character is underpowered anyways.

The fact that they actually have the ability to do this..... is concerning to say the least.

No. It's really not, because once again:
All they do is disable your access to the EA community servers.
That disallows you from using the DLC, which has a side effect of if your saved games feature the DLC--you can't use those saves until you've reestablished the connection to the EA community servers.
You can still play, you just have to start a new save without the DLC.

Requia wrote:It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.

Uh, that's actually not "he was given service". That's "he purchased a good".

This situation, while somewhat complex at a glance, really isn't.
He bought a good, which features a service governed by a very specific set of rules.
He broke those rules; his access to the service was revoked.

If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.

Sure there is. It maintains a constant verification of your DLC, registers your game as 'valid', and acts as a kind of 'perk' for you having bought the game brand new rather than second hand.

But eh. The point's moot anyways, since the guy's game was reactivated the day he went crying to the internet.

EA shouldn't have whimped out. Should have let the git roast.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Requia wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.

It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.

If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.

Exactly, all businesses have the right to refuse to sell something to someone but they do not have the right to unsell something they have already sold.

**Kanluwen**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Requia wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.

It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.

If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.

Exactly, all businesses have the right to refuse to sell something to someone but they do not have the right to unsell something they have already sold.

And if you'd actually read rather than just jump on the "EA's the devil!" train you'd understand that wasn't the case.

The only reason he could not play was because he had downloaded the DLC and then tried to play the game.

The first thing the game does upon hitting the title screen on consoles, when unplugged from the Internet, is inform you that it is "Checking downloaded content..." and then give you a statement that "Warning: You are not signed in to the EA Servers. Your downloadable content cannot be verified. This will affect your saved games if you choose to sign in to the EA servers at a future date."

Considering that he could have just deleted the DLC from his hard drive(and then redownloaded it later, at no charge, as it's a one time purchase/code redemption and the license is saved to your Xbox Live Marketplace Registry) and played without the DLC, then played it later and gotten everything--there's nothing, whatsoever, wrong with what EA did. The guy was just a twit.

**KamikazeCanuck**

That's why I don't think EA meant for what happened to happen actually. I think it was more of a software oversight. Like you said he could have contacted customer support instead of crying on the internet but then we wouldn't have this thread

**Kanluwen**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's why I don't think EA meant for what happened to happen actually. I think it was more of a software oversight. Like you said he could have contacted customer support instead of crying on the internet but then we wouldn't have this thread

Yep.

But honestly: even if it was intentional, I do not see anything wrong with it.

This idea that downloadable content is somehow "part of the product" is false. It's an add-on, something that requires the product to operate but the product doesn't require it to operate.

EA, if they did actually do this on purpose was well within their rights to do it as the peripheral content(DLC) and the registration system in place for said peripheral content is governed by the rules of the EA Community.

**KamikazeCanuck**

p.s. EA is the Devil.

**Soup and a roll**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:p.s. EA is the Devil.

Reported. Enjoy your ban from the internet.

The case seems pretty open and shut. The guy paid for a product and then through a series of unfortunate/irresponsible circumstances was denied use of his product. While I personally feel the ban might do him some good, EA have clearly violated his rights and should have either refunded his money or given him access to his product as soon as possible, which they apparently did. The guy being an idiot has no effect on his rights as a consumer.

**Kanluwen**

You don't have any bloody rights when it comes to an optional service.

How is this complicated?

**KamikazeCanuck**

Soup and a roll wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:p.s. EA is the Devil.

Reported. Enjoy your ban from the internet.

The case seems pretty open and shut. The guy paid for a product and then through a series of unfortunate/irresponsible circumstances was denied use of his product. While I personally feel the ban might do him some good, EA have clearly violated his rights and should have either refunded his money or given him access to his product as soon as possible, which they apparently did. The guy being an idiot has no effect on his rights as a consumer.

Damn! Now I can't play my NHL 2005 that I paid for in full 5 years ago!

I forgive you though because what you said afterwards used logic.

**Kanluwen**

No, it didn't use logic.

It used what I like to refer to as "indignant customer logic".

Which is to say "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!".

**Requia**

Kanluwen wrote:Sure there is. It maintains a constant verification of your DLC, registers your game as 'valid', and acts as a kind of 'perk' for you having bought the game brand new rather than second hand.

This is not a legitimate reason. To start with Xbox servers already handle this function (via one time download codes). For another thing, lookup 'right of first sale'. EA is violating copyright law by doing this.

**Kanluwen**

Requia wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Sure there is. It maintains a constant verification of your DLC, registers your game as 'valid', and acts as a kind of 'perk' for you having bought the game brand new rather than second hand.

This is not a legitimate reason. To start with Xbox servers already handle this function (via one time download codes). For another thing, lookup 'right of first sale'. EA is violating copyright law by doing this.

No, they're not "violating copyright law by doing this".

Reread the "Right of First Sale". In fact, here's a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
To pull the overview:

Copyright, as the name suggests, is the right to copy a work of some form. If one resells or gives as a gift a book (or CD or DVD) that one has bought, a new copy has not been made, therefore it is legal under US copyright law.

With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner.

The common law, prior to the 1909 codification, originally applied to copies that had been sold (hence the "first sale doctrine"). The 1909 codification applied to anyone in possession, but over time, courts interpreting the Act required that the possession be of such a nature as to entitle the possessor to transfer it (as opposed to just being a bailee), and that the copy itself had to be a legitimate, non-infringing copy. Congress essentially agreed and, in the 1976 Act, clarified it to apply to any "owner" of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord (recorded music) regardless of whether it was first sold. So, for example, if the copyright owner licenses someone to make a copy (such as by downloading), then that copy (meaning the tangible medium of expression onto which it was copied under license, be it a hard drive or removable storage medium) may lawfully be sold, lent, traded, or given away.

The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords and certain types of computer software, although private nonprofit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items if a notice that the work may be copyrighted is on the copy.

Some U.S. case law allows manufacturers to restrict the first-sale doctrine by a clickwrap contract or other agreement. The case law is conflicting, however, and the legality of allowing first-sale doctrine rights to be abrogated by contract has been questioned as described below. One apparent reason for the confusion is that the original 1909 codification has been divided into two parts, and most references to the codification cite only 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), which provides that the owner of a copy, lawfully made under the Copyright Act, is entitled to transfer possession or ownership without the consent of the copyright owner. But the other portion of the original codification, 17 U.S.C. § 202, clarifies the fundamental distinction between copies and copyrights (and between owners of copies and owners of copyrights). In other words, the agreement that purports to restrict the copy owner's statutory right cannot be viewed as an exercise of copyright licensing, since the copyright itself (the distribution right, under 17 U.S.C. § 106(3)) does not extend to non-infringing copies not owned by the copyright owner. Rather, the agreement is a pure restraint on trade in the tangible copies, and may be judged under antitrust laws, just like any other restraint[citation needed]. Those who breach an agreement to not re-distribute a lawfully made copy they own may, perhaps, be liable for breach of contract, but not for copyright infringement[citation needed].

It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'supplemental material for the product'--which is what Downloadable Content is.

I think you really need to realize that there's no legal precedent by which you can say that EA is "violating the copyright law", unless you're misreading or just plain wrong about it.
The absolute closest thing is this part:

The common law, prior to the 1909 codification, originally applied to copies that had been sold (hence the "first sale doctrine"). The 1909 codification applied to anyone in possession, but over time, courts interpreting the Act required that the possession be of such a nature as to entitle the possessor to transfer it (as opposed to just being a bailee), and that the copy itself had to be a legitimate, non-infringing copy. Congress essentially agreed and, in the 1976 Act, clarified it to apply to any "owner" of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord (recorded music) regardless of whether it was first sold. So, for example, if the copyright owner licenses someone to make a copy (such as by downloading), then that copy (meaning the tangible medium of expression onto which it was copied under license, be it a hard drive or removable storage medium) may lawfully be sold, lent, traded, or given away.

The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords and certain types of computer software, although private nonprofit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items if a notice that the work may be copyrighted is on the copy.

Which doesn't say "You have an unalienable right to access your downloadable content, even if you violate the distributor's terms of usage".

**Requia**

There is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products.

Unless you'd like Apple to come by and wipe everything you bought on iTunes?

**Kanluwen**

Requia wrote:There is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products.

Prove it.

No, really. Go on and prove it.
DLC isn't a "product" in itself. It's an add-on which you're not entitled to just by simply having bought the original product. Otherwise it wouldn't be paid downloadable content or require a redeeming code in some cases.
It would be included with the game purchase.

Unless you'd like Apple to come by and wipe everything you bought on iTunes?

COMPLETELY different situation and it shows that you're doing nothing but reaching.

iTunes operates as a fully licensed vendor/distributor for music, TV, and the like.
There's a reason your iPod 'syncs' every time you connect to iTunes--the same reason you have to connect to the EA servers. It verifies that you haven't tampered with or attempted to manipulate the system in any way.

**Requia**

Prove what? I'm making a statement of ethics: There is no reason to treat the customer differently simply because EA refuses to behave in an ethical manner and put all software on the disk instead of just some.

Also, your faith in DRM is laughable. If you were tampering with the system that wouldn't work. DRM only interferes with legitimate customers (such as in this case). Those of us that refuse to put up with it get less crap (for the ipod example, that's take me about 30 seconds to install hymn, and another 5 seconds to strip the DRM. Poof, DRM free music, and there's jack Apple can do about it, or even any way for them to know (not that Apple cares, its an RIAA thing that Apple has since talked them down from). Heck the only reason XBox DRM is even a little effective is that most people are nervous about taking a screwdriver to their hardware.

And iPods sync because of playlist features, and to well, sync, so that if you got new music it goes to the iPod automatically. The DRM component is done when files are transferred.

**Slarg232**

Kanluwen wrote:
Requia wrote:There is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products.

Prove it.

No, really. Go on and prove it.
DLC isn't a "product" in itself. It's an add-on which you're not entitled to just by simply having bought the original product. Otherwise it wouldn't be paid downloadable content or require a redeeming code in some cases.
It would be included with the game purchase.

No. It's really not, because once again:
All they do is disable your access to the EA community servers.
That disallows you from using the DLC, which has a side effect of if your saved games feature the DLC--you can't use those saves until you've reestablished the connection to the EA community servers.
You can still play, you just have to start a new save without the DLC.

To answer the first part, if you pay for something, it's a product, wiether digital or physical. There are two, and only two business types on the planet: Those that sell Products, and those that sell Services. DLC can hardly be considered a Service, or at the very least, Paid DLC can't be. If you buy something (DLC) and download it, you just bought a product. No one should be able to take away a Product you just bought, even if you need to be on the forums to use it.

And as for the second part: If you pay for hte DLC and use them on saves, that should NOT be able to be taken away just because you bad mouth the company. You once again payed for the product, not the service.

Since we love analogies; A Product is Norton Antivirus, while a Service is Geek Squad. They both do the same thing, but one is something you buy and install, the other is a serviceman who cleans your computer himself. If you piss off Norton, they already sold you the product, and while they can chose to NOT sell you something down the road, that's fine and dandy, but if they hit a button that causes your Antivirus to Asplode, before your time is up, they shouldn't be able to do that. The Geek Squad, since your just paying for it's use that time, can refuse service if they want, but can't screw up your computer the time they are working on it.

**Kanluwen**

Requia wrote:Prove what? I'm making a statement of ethics: There is no reason to treat the customer differently simply because EA refuses to behave in an ethical manner and put all software on the disk instead of just some.

You're making the claim that "there is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products". Prove it.
And for that matter:
What the frig does them putting things as DLC rather than on the disc have to do with ethics? Nothing. Is it annoying to have a few pieces of paid DLC available right at launch? For some people, yes. But there's nothing wrong with that.

Also, your faith in DRM is laughable. If you were tampering with the system that wouldn't work. DRM only interferes with legitimate customers (such as in this case). Those of us that refuse to put up with it get less crap (for the ipod example, that's take me about 30 seconds to install hymn, and another 5 seconds to strip the DRM. Poof, DRM free music, and there's jack Apple can do about it, or even any way for them to know (not that Apple cares, its an RIAA thing that Apple has since talked them down from). Heck the only reason XBox DRM is even a little effective is that most people are nervous about taking a screwdriver to their hardware.

Except the DRM is really intended to function with consoles. This guy was banned from being able to load the DLC on his console.

And iPods sync because of playlist features, and to well, sync, so that if you got new music it goes to the iPod automatically. The DRM component is done when files are transferred.

..."The DRM component is done when files are transferred" still means that the DRM component is done. Not sure why this is so complicated for you to understand.

Slarg232 wrote:To answer the first part, if you pay for something, it's a product, whether digital or physical. There are two, and only two business types on the planet: Those that sell Products, and those that sell Services. DLC can hardly be considered a Service, or at the very least, Paid DLC can't be. If you buy something (DLC) and download it, you just bought a product.

First: EA didn't "take away a product he just bought". They disabled his access to the EA community, meaning that his DLC couldn't be verified. He shouldn't have been able to download or redeem the content to begin with, but he was able to.
Second: DLC can feasibly be considered a product, even the "paid DLC"--sure. However at its core: it's a service for distributing additional content for the game to prolong it's life.

No one should be able to take away a Product you just bought, even if you need to be on the forums to use it. And as for the second part: If you pay for the DLC and use them on saves, that should NOT be able to be taken away

You know that "Right of First Sale" that Requia was jumping up and pointing at earlier?
The courts have ruled on EULA. And it ain't good for you bud.

"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the court also found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"

So I'd suggest you actually start reading the damned things if you want to try to have some kind of reasonable discussion about what a company "should or should not" be able to do.
EA's well within their purview to disable access to DLC.
Although, according to BioWare being banned from the forums is not supposed to ban you from signing in via console games. So hey. Who knows.

just because you bad mouth the company. You once again paid for the product, not the service.

Since you're so focused on the half-arsed, sensationalist news report that you posted, rather than what was actually posted:
The guy did not get banned for badmouthing the company. He got banned for calling people buying the game "f**king morons".
People call EA names on the BioWare and EA forums all the time. They don't get banned.

You get banned when you insult other posters or violate the posting rules of the EA community.
Calling EA names isn't one of those violations.

**Slarg232**

Kanluwen wrote:First: EA didn't "take away a product he just bought". They disabled his access to the EA community, meaning that his DLC couldn't be verified. He shouldn't have been able to download or redeem the content to begin with, but he was able to.
Second: DLC can feasibly be considered a product, even the "paid DLC"--sure. However at its core: it's a service for distributing additional content for the game to prolong it's life.

Did he pay for it? Did they disable his ability to use it, inadvertantly or not?

If you answered yes to both of these questions, I have some bad news.......

You know that "Right of First Sale" that Requia was jumping up and pointing at earlier?
The courts have ruled on EULA. And it ain't good for you bud.

And courts are not always right. It some times takes courts many trials to reach a single decision. Also, look at how many murders/rapes that go unpunished because of lack of evidence, poor lawyers, or some such. Maybe the court didn't want to get into video games? Maybe the judge didn't care. Maybe the Judge was payed off. Who knows, do you?

"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the court also found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"

So I'd suggest you actually start reading the damned things if you want to try to have some kind of reasonable discussion about what a company "should or should not" be able to do.
EA's well within their purview to disable access to DLC.
Although, according to BioWare being banned from the forums is not supposed to ban you from signing in via console games. So hey. Who knows.

Disable access to DLC someone hasn't already payed for, yes. Once someone has payed for it, IT. IS. THEIRS. Are you seriously argueing for EA, the most money grubbing greed inspired video corperation on the planet, to be able to grab someones money and then just disable what they paid for if they really want to?

It might have not supposed to happen, but the fact that it can makes it scary. Hell, maybe tomorrow I'll make a video game, write a consention form like the EULA, include the words "Oh, and I with hold the right to terminate the usage of this product at any time I want", take people's money, and then disable the game. It's perfectly within my rights, and the Court would have to rule it my way with their ruling on the EULA. Precedents, and all that jazz.

But as for EA, they have lost at least one customer because of this. You don't beleive me, but looking through my 30 odd game collection, only two of them are EA, and thats Dead Space 2 and Dragon Age: Origins. I can fully live without them.

**Requia**

@kanluwen

The third and 5th circuit judges would disagree with your legal points there, I believe the third circuit judge specifically mentioned right of first sale when he wrote about why EULAs should be considered invalid.

The only appeals case of a EULA being ruled as valid despite contradicting copyright law is in the 8th circuit. The 7th circuit is the only other court to have held EULAs enforceable in any way at all in an appeals case. In 40 something states, EULAs are either untested or mean jack all.

**Orlanth**

Kanluwen wrote:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Please excuse my ignorance.

Did he buy a copy of the game and then was unable to use it?

Is saying waht he allegedly said really so detrimental to a corporation that it warrants such action?

I assume the ban is temporary and he will be able to access the game?

It seems rather draconian to me (pun intended)
I am not a gamer so this is baffling to my unititiated eyes.

What he said was in violation of EA Community rules.

Said game has DLC/online features that fall under the auspice of the EA Community Rules.

He was banned from using EA Community; thus could not use the EA Community features for said game.

It's like getting forum banned for being a douchenozzle in Blizzard's Warcraft forums and being unable to post on any of their Battle.Net associated forums.

Poor excuse, he made a commentary on the game companies ethical standards. We do this all the time about GW.

Saying that 'Bioware has sold its soul to the EA devil' is not trolling in the slightest. EA should grow a thicker skin, in fact they should grow a skin at all. Its a fairly normal level of critique that any forum should tolerate. Last time we saw this level of crass intolerance to critique was with Tau Online. All Bioware/Ea are doing by their kneejerk reaction ios indicating that there is a case to answer.

I love old Bioware Games, Baldur's Gate series especially, and bought Dragon Age. However all temptation to buy Dragon Age 2 has ceased, in fact they have done me a favour as I will hold out for Skyrim and Gothic 4, and Bethesda at least are mature enough not to piss on their customer base and are men enough to accept honest critique. This may sound extreme but iosnt really if you think about it. I don't like giving my money to transparently unethical companies, and while all companies grasp to some extent some go above and beyond the call of duty in douchebaggery. GW comes to mind here, and they get very little money from me now, EA's reaction has placed them in the same category. In fact they are worse. the whole attitude of give us your money but if you don't think we are awesome we spit in your face, that leaves a bad taste. Giving money to two face corporations with thatv attitude is akin to being duped, all smiles so long as the credit card is out, but with The Finger as a response to customer critique. I dont like dealing with people like that, so I wont. Well done EA, you just cost me your custom, and there is enough out there that I am not likely to be tempted back for anything other than white label stuff.

**Kanluwen**

Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.

He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Requia wrote:@kanluwen

The third and 5th circuit judges would disagree with your legal points there, I believe the third circuit judge specifically mentioned right of first sale when he wrote about why EULAs should be considered invalid.

The only appeals case of a EULA being ruled as valid despite contradicting copyright law is in the 8th circuit. The 7th circuit is the only other court to have held EULAs enforceable in any way at all in an appeals case. In 40 something states, EULAs are either untested or mean jack all.

Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (a box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruled that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.

That might be what you're referring to.

In a more recent case involving software EULAs and first-sale rights Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)[1], the first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the court also found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"

Softman has pretty much been disregarded now.

**Orlanth**

Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.

He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".

Citation please. This would change things.

**Slarg232**

Orlanth wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.

He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".

Citation please. This would change things.

But not enough. Don't see CoD forum members banned from playing Halo, even after they just join and troll the Bungie Forums.......

**Requia**

Softman is not what I'm talking about, to start with that's the 9th district. For another its not an EULA case (since they never actually agreed to the EULA).

The other case you mentioned is not binding precedent, since it never went to appeal. While a judge might be required to consider it, outside the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th districts the judge is free to make their own decision (which is what makes the question effectively untested, as judges have ruled both ways).

**Kanluwen**

Orlanth wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.

He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".

Citation please. This would change things.

Would love to, but it was a link on Kotaku's Twitter feed when the story originally broke about a week ago--and I'm not digging through that crap.

Besides that, the post was removed from the BioWare forums.

Don't see CoD forum members banned from playing Halo, even after they just join and troll the Bungie Forums.......

You see them banned from the Bungie Forums for trolling if they start up the "Lulz Halo sux0rs COD rawxors" threads, yeah.
It takes a lot to get banned from the Bungie Forums however, and one of those reasons to get banned from the Bungie Forums is not for making fun of Microsoft or Bungie.

However: many of the people who "join and troll the Bungie Forums" play on a PS3 or PC. What possible punishment could Bungie give them? Not release Halo for their platform?

If it makes it to in-game harassment of other players on XBL however, they can have their console be permanently banned from Xbox Live and receive no refund of their XBL subscription fee.