Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 8:24 AM
Wed Nov 25
53 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/22/09
I mean...if it's against the ToS....shouldn't you, I don't know...not DO it?
Even if you mod the console and use it responsibly (like not cheat or be a total douche...) it doesn't guarantee that the other person will be responsible. It's those jerk faces that ruin it...y'know?
In the end, if it's against the rules stated by MS and you break them...you should get whatever MS decides for you. It's the risk you take for breaking them.
You can't break the rules and not get slighted for it.
I'm sorry for the folks and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm on the high horse here....I but I just see it as a 'Shouldn't have done it in the first place.' situation.
:shrugs:
11/22/09
11/22/09
Yeah, see, there's folks that are like that and then there's the jerks that like use cheat mods or codes that ultimately screw up good matches because people aren't playing fair.
I'm sure this was an existing problem for PC gamers out there right guys?
The banning only steams to Live not the 360 console completely right? But still, if you get banned from Live you can never get back on there...so, I guess if you want to get back on Live you'll need to get a whole new system.
And that's rather unfortunate...
11/22/09
11/23/09
piracy is wrong, too, but it really irks me to think that i can't purchase something and use it however i like (provided that use is of course, legal under state/national law, and not "law" put forth by corporations).
11/23/09
As others have said, the real sticking point here is that once you brought the console..it DOES belong to do and you can do WHATEVER you want to it. Go nuts!
However, once you go on Live, you're now on MS ground and you have to abide by their rules. And if they said no-no to the modding and lay down the smack...then take it. You have NO ground to stand on.
And you AGREED to the ToS, you're subject to their rules.
If you know it's wrong and against the rules and you STILL go against them then you shouldn't cry foul when you're punished.
Just because you CAN doesn't always mean you SHOULD. There are ALWAYS consequences of your actions....
@akihito:
LOL! Well, I can't do that...because I'm not perfect either. Everyone has done things that were..um...against some rule or whatever.
If I did something against Kotaku's ToS thingy, they have every right to ban me or unstar me. I agreed to the rules when I signed up to chat here.
I like order.
11/22/09
Oh and people crying, read the TOS. Always read the TOS. The TOS covers the whole system. You can even take a TOS or a EULA to a public defender and they will break it down for you for free in about 10 mins or so.
11/22/09
...been reading online how to repair it myself. But now I'm worried that if I open up the case and fix the stupid tray - is there a chance that I could get banned?
11/22/09
Opening the whole case technically voids the warrantee. (1 yr everything, 3 yr rrod+ e74)
Zero chance you'll get banned if you don't alter any firmware etc etc.
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
#tips
11/22/09
Anyway, it's been in my attic for years. So it's well outside of the warranty.
I'd held onto it, and recently I'd read how to fix the tray (many others appear to have experienced the same problem).
Cool, so it looks like the consensus is that if I open it up to fix the tray - and attach my hard drive to it whenever I want to use it, I won't get banned. Sweet!
EDIT: I won't be replacing the drive, I'd read years ago that you have to do something to the drive with firmware or something, I don't really care what it is specifically, I just know I don't want to mess with that. ...someone explained how to FIX the drive that's currently in there. So I'm gonna give it a shot, just didn't want to get banned for trying to fix something years out of warranty.
11/22/09
As for Microsoft (xbox division). Fuck them!
They don't ban your account, they ban your machine and still take further payments for xbox live, even though they know you can't use it.
Also, if you're on your second 360 but haven't transferred your game licenses (because you don't need to if you are signed in to live) - then all the games you own that you have paid for revert to trials. Considering how many RRoD's are out there, chances are they are taking legally paid for games away from people. I don't care what their TOS say's, that's gotta be illegal.
Let's say Piracy is stealing (not my personal opinion but whatever). If I walk into Game and take a copy of FIFA illegally, that doesn't give Microsoft the right to walk into my house and take my legally purchased games.
Just because something is in a TOS doesn't mean it's a rock solid legal right to do anything. What's to stop Microsoft putting "By accepting this agreement you agree to pay £1000 per month for the rest of your life" in the hotmail TOS? Or "You agree not to send email and if you do, you will have to pay with your life".
---
11/22/09
Congrats tho on trying to justify that, i guess now you'll put some pep H on and go about your business. It's ok the burning will stop in a few hours.
That's if you don't end up in the cell next to bubba who will also use the M$ Hate lube on you. Then i bet that game will be worth every penny.
11/22/09
Considering it seems many people want to use their products and most of those people don't read the terms (doesn't do any good, you can't negotiate if you did), it is likely that an unreasonable term could be ruled unenforceable by a court.
11/22/09
11/22/09
If they didn't transfer the games its kinda their own fault. The way Arcade games work is pretty public knowledge. If you didn't transfer them and were stupid enough to play online with a modded console, you got what you deserved for being a fucking moron.
Your example, like all examples that use physical objects to define a purely digital act, simply doesn't work. In your case, the store you stole it from has the right to call the cops and have them remove the item and you from your home. Since stealing is illegal. Copyright violation, doesn't work the same way.If you pirate a game the publisher has the right to sue you, but its a waste of the system's time to make a legal case out of it.
This example doesn't work either. Yes, they could change hotmail to a paid service, but they can not take your money without you giving willing and full knowing permission upfront. You agreed to pay for Live, you allowed MS to charge your card and to continue charging it until you cancel your service. As you said, they ban the console and not the account. So the person that had their console banned can buy a new console and be able to keep using their same profile. If they don't want to, then they still have to cancel the Gold service. If the account was banned the service would be canceled. MS wants you to buy another console so they're not going to ban the accounts on the modded system.
There are valid issues to bring up with the banning, yours don't qualify.
11/22/09
11/22/09
2 people, both on their second 360, both with a collection of xbox live games. One transferred his licenses to the second console the other didn't.
They both commit the same breach of the TOS and get banned from live.
One gets to play the games that he paid for, the other doesn't. That means the punishment isn't the same for two people who commit the same crime.
Explain how that's just? If we both meet tomorrow and in front of a court we both kill different people at the same time, then I get off with a warning, that would give you a legal precedence to file complaint. Why isn't it the same for people who are banned from xbox live?
I'm not saying, don't ban these guys from xbox live, all I'm saying is that the laws need tightening up on digital distribution because as it stands the customers (the people who laws are meant to protect) currently have no rights at all.
Microsofts DRM restriction should be removed when a console is banned so that customers who paid for their games legally can still play them.
Microsoft should also be made to refund the remaining months of a banned consoles subscription.
We have the rights to back up our CD's, why not our games which cost 10 times more than albums and why should Microsoft be able to take the games that someone has bought?
Oh and it doesn't say
Portal - gain limited access to the full game for 1200 MS points
it says
Portal - Buy - 1200 ms points.
#speakup
Even if you don't agree with my hatred of Microsoft's xbox division can you at least see that the laws for digital distribution need to change before it's too late?
11/22/09
Oh god, you actually buy that cartoon that says its not stealing because the "original" remains intact? I guess swiping a vaccine from your hospital is OK since the "original" is still intact and that's just a copy.
If you want to pirate, fine, I don't care. Just stop trying to kid yourself with lame arguments and sematics that it's not stealing. Someone else's work + you not compensating them fo it = stealing.
Not that hard.
11/22/09
Even when you buy a gun it can be confiscated. The cops won't give it you back (well maybe in America I'm not sure) and just take away the bullets. DO you get reimbursed for confiscated items from police? Same here.
11/22/09
Or hey, maybe that's not the best analogy, since insurance is mandatory. How about, they both have identical fines, but one of them can afford to pay it and the other cannot. The one who cannot will likely end up having to pay more, whether it's from interest on a loan, the ticket getting sent to collections, whatever.
Is it the court's fault that he was unprepared to take responsibility for breaking the rules, causing the punishment to affect him more? Of course not. It may not be his fault either, maybe he just had to pay for braces for his kid, and so he's broke. But whether or not it is actually through some fault, the fact remains that the responsibility is his and his alone.
11/22/09
I've just finished uni, I have the -£23k and -£1750 in the bank. If I go download Gears of War 1 and 2 tomorrow, am I really taking something from Epic?
What money would they get from me legally buying the game from my friend or gamespot as a preowned game?
I simply can't afford to buy the games at full price and so I can't give the developers any money. But you better believe that if I haven't played Gears of War 1 and 2 by the time Gears 3 comes out (when hopefully my financial circumstances is a lot better) then I won't be buying Gears 3 or any after that and those are games that I buy, day release when I can finally start putting my degree's to good use.
So, my question is - would the developers be better off if I download the first two now, or never play them at all?
-----
FTR, I got the Gears Special Edition on day release in a tin and I was first inline at Lincoln's Gamestation for a midnight release of Gears 2 (picked up Smackdown vs Raw 2009 at the same time). They are my favorite 360 games to date (well except N+ and Crackdown) and I will be buying GoW3 day release even if I have to buy a new console to play them.
The above was simply a scenario that shows why I don't believe copying games is stealing.
Apply the same theory to Lost or 24, if you haven't seen season 1-5 of Lost, there is no way you would watch season 6 so the ratings drop and the networks who paid for the content to be made will lose out on advertising sales. In 24's case, the show might get canned altogether so the whole crew get fired.
Do you think the guys making 24 want to be fired?
#speakup
I don't think we should get content for free, I believe there should be a media tax just like the TV License here in Britain.
11/22/09
Fines should be proportionate to a persons wealth. Rather than a $100 fine, it should be 50% of your weekly wage. That way the millionaire is effected just as much as the poor man as they both have to give up half of this weeks wage. After all, Bill Gates would wipe his ass on a $100 bill.
#speakup
11/22/09
WOW! That statement is JUST retarded and goes against what a legal system is meant to stand for.
As for the rest of your example, while I understand that it happens - I was referring to two guys both doing the same crime in front of the same judge and both being tried at the same time. I didn't say it before but just to drill it home.
Two identical twins, who both commit the exact same crime all on camera, they are asked the exact same questions, they answer exactly the same, in the same manor, to the same judge in front of the same jury, both are tried at the same time.
If one went free and the other got 10 years, the lawyers would be appealing that shit straight away and the judge would have to give a reason a legal reason as to why he treated them both differently.
#speakup
11/22/09
Your ideals about fines have nothing to do with the real world (thank god. do you really want the courts digging through your personal finances when you have to pay a fine?), and even if they did, my second analogy already skirts around them. Because what if they both make the same wage, but as I mentioned, one of the guys just got cleaned out by having to pay for his kid's braces?
11/22/09
As for the kids teeth - I'm British, despite my country's deserved reputation for bad dental hygiene - kids get free dental treatments regardless of the parents income.
But lets say that isn't the case and the guy really has a good reason why he can't afford the fine this week. Then he does exactly what he would no matter how big the fine is, he provides evidence to the court and they sort out a payment plan or set the fine date back a week.
---
Your suspicion of your government is understandable but if you're in court and all you have to do is show a judge your bank statement for the last year and a copy of your last 12 pay slips then you're not doing too bad.
There is a reason we all pay tax in percentages.
#speakup
11/22/09
Piracy is not stealing. Its a crime, sure, but it's its own UNIQUE crime. Its more analogous to counterfeiting then stealing. Stealing, by definition, REQUIRES loss of property on their party. By pirating a game, all I have done is ignore copyright laws. I am making unauthorized copies of a product, thus deflating its overall value. I am not STEALING. I am counterfeiting, or better yet...PIRATING.
Not to say its not a crime, but it IS NOT stealing. It isn't even analogous to stealing because they lose NOTHING.
11/22/09
There is a victim in that crime.
When you buy something from someone you enter into a contract with them, if you pay them with something that is not legal tender then you are not living up to your agreement with them. Pirates don't enter into an agreement with content holder, therefore they can't break such an agreement and as the content holder is no worse off - they lose nothing, it's a victimless crime and therefore shouldn't really be a crime.
I see the flip side of the argument so it comes down what I believe the law is there for. I think it's there to protect the people, in reality it's there to protect the rich.
Sony have proved they can stop piracy with the PS3 so this argument will hopefully become mute in the next 5 years.
#speakup
11/22/09
Your argument about the XBL fee not being cancelled is also a moot point as you purchase a gold account for the actual account, not the console. You yourself (i.e. your profile) are not banned. You may take that to any other console connected to Live and make full use out of it. If an account is banned then all payment ceases, but that isn't what happens in this case.
Anyone who has problems with this should just read section 16 of the XBL terms (see link below), then go home with their tails between their legs!
[www.xbox.com]
11/22/09
[www.techdirt.com]
Section 15, from the link you provided
"The scope, variety, and type of online services and digital products that you may obtain by redeeming Points can change at any time."
If one aspect of the agreement is unenforceable, the rest of the document becomes void because the you can't agree to something that's unenforceable. Kind of like when a minor signs a contract, nobody can hold that minor to the contract and therefore it doesn't matter it says.
[www.theregister.co.uk]
------
If Microsoft had put in "You will pay for this service with your life" that wouldn't give them the right to take your life because you agreed to it.
#speakup
11/22/09
Are you serious? Thats not the reason why counterfeiting is a crime. Counterfeiting is a crime because it undermines the modern financial system, the stability of our economy a host load of other things. What you described is a possible result of counterfeiting as a crime. Those consequences, to a FAR lesser extent, are also the effects of piracy, on a scale limited to the music movie and gaming industry.
11/22/09
Well it's great that you use the example of two people, same crime, same time, same judge but that rarely happens so like I said different punishments will be given showing justice is flawed by your idea of everyone having to have the same punishment.
There's no such difference here though, using that example your talking about the same judge. That would be MS, and they've given there decision and given everyone the same punishment. Maybe your after everyone getting the same punishment no matter the judge but that won't happen thanks to the fractured design of the law which allows judges to make the decisions in most cases.
11/22/09
What you said is basically the same as what I said but on a bigger scale. The point is, there are clear cut victims of fraud and no examples of where counterfeit money has benefited the financial system. That's not the case with Piracy.
As for the effects of piracy, there are document cases of both effects of piracy, 1 where companies go out of business and the other where companies make shit loads of money. With strong arguments for both sides it's fair to say that Piracy isn't the reason for movie/music/gaming failures - how can it be the reason for one movie/song/game thriving but another failing miserably? Surely other factors must come into play?
#speakup
11/22/09
"your talking about the same judge. That would be MS, and they've given there decision and given everyone the same punishment."
Dude, did you read the post before jumping in? From higher up
"2 people, both on their second 360, both with a collection of xbox live arcade games. One transferred his licenses to the second console the other didn't.
They both commit the same breach of the TOS and get banned from live.
One gets to play the games that he paid for, the other doesn't. That means the punishment isn't the same for two people who commit the same crime. "
"You sound like a fool though who sees things at face value and so bitch when a console gets it's functionality removed"
From the same post as the earlier quote (both can be seen by scrolling up the fucking page)
"I'm not saying, don't ban these guys from xbox live"
then a little further down
"Microsofts DRM restriction should be removed when a console is banned so that customers who paid for their games legally can still play them."
-------
Maybe if you read what you are replying to, it will save us both a little time. I'm all for them banning people from xbox live but that doesn't mean they should have the right to take back/limit games that people have legally purchased. What if I am banned for something like disrespect, should they be able to take my games away? Why stop at the digital ones I paid for? Why not have them come round my house and get the other games I legally paid for and replace them with demo's?
--------
On a separate note, I love kotaku's reply system. It feels like much more of a conversation than it once did.
#speakup
11/22/09
But in your original example, they two people DIDN'T have the same situation -- one had up-to-date DRM and the other didn't. The punishment is the same for both (ban from XBL and all that you use XBL for), but the impact is different.
Lets use your 2nd example. Two identical people commiting identical crimes and receiving identical sentences of a $1000 fine. The first person has $10,000 saved in the bank, and so pays the fine. The second person doesn't have that savings, and so has to pay the fine instead of rent . . . and so they get evicted.
Was the 2nd person "punished" more by the system? No. The punishment was exactly identical. The disproportionate consequence came because the 2nd person choose to not save a cushion. It was a risk. If they never get hit with a fine (or lose their income), then they are golden. But if they do . . . they're screwed.
In your original example (the XBLA licenses), the first person made sure to transfer the licenses. The second person didn't. Is that MS's fault? Especially given that they urge you to do exactly that? The 2nd user choose to not transfer the DRM for the games. They can't complain when that bites them in the ass. If you don't save up emergency rent, you can't be shocked when a sudden bill cuts into your rent.
11/22/09
Two reasons why that scenario is wrong. 1, if a guy can't pay a fine - the courts let him pay it off at a pace he can without eviction (British person here, we don't kick people out on the streets because of a fine, if we did - we would have to pay their living fee's)
Second reason this whole comparison is wrong, Microsoft aren't only imposing 1 punishment they are imposing 2 on the second guy. They take his network play away and HIS games.
Lets look at this in PSP Go terms. You go get a PSP Go, spend 10k on games for it, Sony then decide to ban you from the PSN and as a result you lose access to 10k worth of games that you own. Why do they have the right to take back what you own?
Same scenario but with a PSP owner instead of a PSP Go owner. The guy spends 10k on games all on disc, he gets banned from PSN - should Sony turn up at his house and take his disc's away?
NO! That would be illegal. It's the same thing as what has happened with xbox live bans in the scenario.
Just because the first guy bought his games through a digital method should not mean that he forgoes his owner ship rights. We are in terrible danger of just going along with large corporations taking our rights away from us. Hell, it's not a danger, it has already happened and the majority of the people in this don't even notice and are so quick to just shoot down the people trying to do something about it.
Microsoft don't say "Lease the game" they say "Buy the game" so at the VERY LEAST they are guilty of misrepresentation of their products (false advertising) and unless people file suit, nothing will get done. Unfortunately, Microsoft have an army of lawyers and an unlimited bank role, if the case ever looks like going to trial they will just settle so that a court can't rule in the defense of people.
There's merit to your second argument but what are the odds that me and you are on the same wage and yet I am super rich and you are super poor? Compare that to the odds that millionaire gets a $100 speeding fine, at the side of some minimum wage guy who gets the exact same fine but ultimately costs him half a weeks wage.
More over, I wouldn't be against the courts making a full financial assessment of the person they are about to fine in order to hand out a punishment that would be fair.
#speakup
11/22/09
I agree the court example doesn't fit too well here.
You are asserting that MS is taking your ownership of the Arcade game, and that I disagree with. You are (if I'm understanding the problem correctly) losing the ability to "get" your DRM approval from the system. This is only a problem if you didn't get the approval already.
MS didn't prohibit you from loading the DRM -- you just didn't bother to do it.
Let me try another example. You get a $50 gift certificate from a store. The gift certificate is non-transferrable, and the store has only one location, which is entirely contined within a shopping mall. The gift certificate has to be presented in person to use it.
You break the rules of the mall (fighting, stealing, whatever) and get trespassed out of the mall. You are not allowed in the mall anymore.
Did they "take" your gift certificate? You can't use it now, because you can't get to the store to use it. Of course, you COULD have used it, and whatever you used it for would be safe, but you didn't. That's not the mall's fault.
Now you might say "but it's EXACTLY like they are taking my merchandise, because I got the game and now it won't play!". The difference is in what you "got". The game software is only part of what you need to play -- you also need the DRM. You didn't get the DRM.
Like the gift certificate, you got banned before you bothered to collect. You COULD have used the gift certificate, or downloaded the DRM (in which case the game works fine), but you didn't. Now you are banned from the system that would allow you to do that. (Not "you" personally but "you" hypothetically).
That does suck, but consider the alternative. I buy 10 gift cards to the hypothetical one-location store. I threaten to kill the clerk, and get banned from the location. But I have gift cards! You have to let me back! So I go back with one of the 10, and do it again. I can come back over and over, violating the rules of the mall all I want. Sure, I'll get sent to jail each time . . . but I can do it again once I get out. Wheeee!
If someone is "owed" something at a secure location, then they should get it before they do some stupid sh!t that gets them blocked from accessing it. If they don't they suffer more from the ban. That does suck, but its the users consequence, not the locations.
When you "buy" a game, you recognize that there are restrictions, right? I "bought" a copy of Combat for the Atari 2600, but try as I might it won't play on my 360. Without working hardware (and the attendant operating software that makes the hardware functional), the cartridge is useless.
MS is in fact "leasing" you software. ALL commercial software is "leased", in the sense that you buy the right to use it. MS, Sony, Nintendo, Adobe, every single commercial software license is a "right to use", not a "you own the code".
Again, not being able to access the DRM for your arcade games does indeed suck -- no question. I'm just not sure how the problem isn't squarely on the modder rather than MS. The consequences of their actions were unanticipated . . . but they appear to be entirely predictable. Just because the modder didn't realize that would happen doesn't make it unfair. It just sucks.
11/22/09
I've already paid a fortune for the system (twice) and games. A friend comes around and tells me that he has had his console modified so that it can play back ups because his kids are "brats and destroy everything". It dawns on me that my kids are going through that same phase and it's why they don't get their hands on my original CD's, only the backups I make for them. My friend points out the rather obvious fact that games cost a fortune compared to CD's and advises me to get it done, so I do.
Months later, my kid informs me that Bomberman no longer will let him play the full game. I try to sign in but it fails. I try again, fails again and this time I get some error codes. I call Microsoft and the person on the other end of the phone informs me that my system has been banned and that they can't even talk about it with me, I ask why, they say they just can't and hang the phone up.
It's the only time my new machine has ever been disconnected from the internet and all the digital games that I OWN, which I have downloaded and activated - revert to trials.
At what point was I (the average Joe customer/soccer mum/grandad/kid) told I would need to transfer my license across? Let alone how to do so? Or even what the fuck a license to play a game I BOUGHT is?
Hell, at the point my 360 blew up there wasn't even a process for me to transfer my files across. Only consoles which were replaced under warranty would have their licenses transferred and that could take over a month (my kids would have loved that). There still wasn't a tool by the time my console was banned as the tool was made available in March of 08 6 months after Halo 3 launched and therefore my ban had kicked in.
If Microsoft hadn't rushed their piece of shit console to the market knowing it was riddled with bugs, my first console would not have broke and how foolish of me to buy a second console when the first one blew up, but then I had paid a fortune out for downloadable games and it's not like I could sell them on. (another law that needs to be made to give power of goods back to the customer)
More importantly, why didn't my activating the full games on my new 360, transfer the license (that as a typical soccer mum I just wouldn't know about) - it said activate full game, I did. There was no transfer of license warning simply because they didn't have that service.
Even now they only let you do it once per year, which when you consider the failure rate of the 360 is ludicrous. And let's face it, it's not an easy task for random joe.
-----------------------------
FTR, I don't have kids, I'm quite clearly not a soccer mum, my 360 didn't get banned, though the first one did break and was replaced by MS because it was still in it's first year, they didn't transfer my licenses automatically like they were supposed to and I assumed that when I activate the games (making them a full game) that nothing else was needed. It wasn't until I went to uni with my 360 and had no xbox live that I spotted the problem but as I said, there was no tool back then and with the PS3 on the way, I knew it was time to sell my relatively new machine.
The issue I outlined is more than possible, I know people who have some content that will work and some that won't and they are banned. Granted they are pirates but that doesn't (shouldn't at least) give Microsoft the right to take back their fully paid for games.
We need some real laws making regarding Digital Distribution and product tying games to services like xbox live.
We need a law that lets me sell on my digitally purchased games because I own them and we need another law that states that I OWN THEM. That's not me hating on Microsoft, it's just me saying that at the minute the companies are writing the law to suit them and we shouldn't be so quick to shoot down the people who are actually trying to establish some rights for us the digital distribution customers. This matter is growing in importance because the internet is taking over.
PSP GO, OnLive, Steam, Direct2Drive, PSN, Xbox Live, etc. In 10 years I want to be able to sell my game collection, hell if I buy Burnout Paradise tomorrow from the PSN and don't like, I want to be able to sell it that day.
#speakup
11/23/09
And as I pointed out in real courts with real judges there are different punishments for the same crime that did form my counter argument to the statement of 2 people in the same court, same judge etc.
I think you got those above quotes from someone else. I didn't talk of DRM at all.
On the whole issue of games they have legally purchased I agree though. They shouldn't be restricted but if it were like the law these items would just be confiscated. They don't ban people from there HD's for disrespect, there's been XBL bannings before but only when they are assumed to be modded are they banned from the HD to my knowledge.
11/23/09
You're making this too easy. In the scrolling window to the right when you're looking to "buy" the game, it EXPLICITY states in capital letters you are buying a -licence- to play the game. Non-transferrable. Honestly, the fact that they allow you to move DLC from one console to the other is extremely generous, because they're not legally obligated to do so.
11/23/09
In 20 years time, we will not have disc's at all. Are you telling me that your whole gaming collection, that you spend considerable amounts of money on, won't even be yours?
Why have you lost the ability to sell products that you buy?
I think what you need to understand is that digital content is still a new concept, especially to the law. At the minute the businesses are writing the law for them and if we don't do anything about it - then that's how it will stay. We won't ever own the content we spend our money on, we won't ever be able to sell our collection. The whole point of this debate is that THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE AWAY A FULL COLLECTION OF GAMES THAT A PERSON HAS BOUGHT.
Most of the laws for this still need to be written/changed, unfortunatly with people like you championing for companies to take your rights, it will probably take longer than it should.
#speakup
11/23/09
I'm not being unrealistic. Microsoft could easily remove the DRM restrictions placed on a console before banning it. Likewise they could/should differentiate the store from xbox live so that people who are banned from a service do not lose games they have bought. It's a new version of product tying that is already illegal in a lot of countries.
Besides, it would be in Microsoft's own interest to keep it so people can buy content online from them.
#speakup
11/23/09
#speakup
11/23/09
You know where the words Pirating comes from- PIRATES. Who stole things that were not theirs. You sheltered kids think you live in a closed system and your actios have no effect outside of what you can see. As I said above:
You want to delude yourself with arguments you read on internet that make you feel better for STEALING intellectual PROPERTY from other PEOPLE- go ahead. you are stealing something someone worked long and hard on and you did not compensate them for. You obviously are to delude by your desire to have every game out there to be able to understand this.
#speakup
11/23/09
Tool.
#speakup
11/23/09
I'd agree with that fully. When I buy a game online, I want my rights to be the same as when I buy from brick and mortar.
Yes, I realize it clearly states I am buying a license. That system is clearly broken, and has no equal anywhere else in the entertainment (or any) industry.
When I buy music on the Itunestore, it is MINE. Their is no way Apple can take it away from me. Even if I get banned (can I even get banned from itunes store o.o?), whatever, whats already mine is already mine.
Until games have this system, and I am no longer forced to pirate games I have already bought (and legally, still own the license to play for that matter), Digital Distribution is utter shit.
11/23/09
...
...
...
I just stated that piracy is not stealing, under any logical definition of stealing. Are you denying this? Then I suggest you buy a dictionary. I never suggested I supported piracy, I never even presented a opinion on piracy, all I said was digital distribution is ridiculous, it utterly invalidates the rights a consumer should have. No other product in the world has this kind of bullshit system, where I can buy 10 game, and get them all banned for something can easily can attribute no real fault on my end, with no appeals process.
My god. Could you stop being a flaming idiot and think before you post? Seriously? Ok, piracy is wrong, I get it. Thanks for that, I didn't know breaking laws was bad, nor did I know that undermining the entire modern concept of trade was bad either. Thanks for your valuable lesson. The point is that piracy...still...isn't....stealing.
You literally went apeshit on me claiming I was some dastard who loved to steal games and eat babies simply because I pointed out that piracy wasn't stealing, its breaking copyright infringement laws, which is something that cannot be compared to stealing.
wow...just wow.
And if you think someone is being a tool because they don't advocate a system where what you buy with real money can be instantly terminated with no refund for quite literally, no reason at all, then I feel sorry for you. My heartfelt condolences to you.
11/23/09
Oh and read what I'm saying in the threads if you are going to come in and take a pop at me for it. I am not advocating piracy, my personal stance on Microsoft and banning people from xbox live is that they should do it the second they detect it, not wait until 100,000's of people have seen their friends get away with it and decided to join.
That still doesn't mean that piracy is theft, it's not theft in anyway. Try and explain to me what exactly is stolen when someone pirates a game.
As you read part of the broke student scenario, why didn't you answer the questions related to it?
------------
Also, you call me a tool, make assumptions about my employment status and try to pass my points of as childish by referring to me as a kid, yet you are the one who is too blind to see your own rights slipping away. What more, you are idiotic enough to openly defend the people and policies responsible for doing such things.
When you bought Sonic on the Mega Drive, did Sega have the ability to take it away from you? Then why is it OK for Microsoft to?
#speakup
11/24/09
NO, I didn't read all of your posts, and never said ANYTHING about the whole digital rights deal. Why? There's nothing to argue. You don't like it? Don't buy/lease games under the system. When you sign the contract you agree to it and give MS or whoever all the power. It's not fair? Maybe. Don't like it- don't do it, don't cry about it. End of story.
#speakup
11/24/09
Digital distribution is ridiculous is it? You're all upset? So . . . don't use it then. You agree to the terms, then whine about them? Too bad- go to the store or ebay or wherever and get a hard copy and stop complaining to strangers on the internet. And you are a touch sensitive there if you think I went "apeshit" with my reply. Sorry I upset you so, but read closely- I never accused you of anything. After all it would be silly to think that someone who doesn't think piracy is stealing would do it . . .
#speakup
11/24/09
@ halfthought:
Guys? Don't like the DRM for downloadable games- DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM. Problem solved. The rules aren't fair but that's irrelevant- go outside and play (or buy the originals)- no one's forcing you to buy an Xbox or whatever in the first place. Wanna steal stuff and convince yourself it's not stealing? Hooray- awesome, teach your children well.
No need to be so senstive either. I went "apeshit" on you halfthought? OK . . . whatever you say. Calm down and don't take this crap so personally- christ, I could care less what you think, I was just trying to make a point about what piracy is.
11/24/09
The laws need to change and sitting there like you are saying 'it's not fair but big deal' is the lazy kind of attitude that will see your rights stripped away from you.
This is the problem with a democracy. Businesses have to care about laws because they can use them to make money, so they lobby and go vote. Lazy assholes like you see that something is 'unfair' but sit by while your rights are getting stripped away.
"How you can believe that taking what is not yours, that someone worked hard to create without compensating them isn't stealing"
If I buy a game second hand, am I stealing? Do the developers get any of the money I pay? Then why is downloading a copy of the game stealing? It's the same result except I aren't giving money to someone that is competing with the developer to sell the developers product.
If I go into Game, I can find a second hand copy of COD MW2, so Game is taking sales away from the IW/Activision. Why would you prefer me to fund the developers competition?
Oh and it's funny how you can sit there saying to me "it's not fair for you to take the game without paying the developers" and then in the next breath you say "the rules aren't fair but that's irrelevant"
Why should you play fair, when you admit that the rules aren't fair? You care more about a company than yourself.
#speakup
11/22/09
Seriously, ask the devs how they feel about these bannings. They work their asses off to hand us a finished product for what sometimes may not amount to much of a profit for their studio, and people still think they're entitled to have access to it for free. Is game developing becoming a thankless job?
11/22/09
And no, backups are not illegal. There is a legal gray area around them with all of the lawsuits that have gone on, but you are still by law in America entitled to one backup of any software you purchase.
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
And in the end, this particular case doesn't entirely come down to piracy. You mod your system, you've violated the terms of service. It doesn't matter what your intent is. Actions have consequences. In this era of internet connectivity, there's suddenly some accountability for what people do to their consoles. People may not like it, but it's just a fact of life. If you want to do all the stuff that the companies don't want you to do, then you have to keep it offline.
11/22/09
How many games in that year do you think are pirated?
How many people have seen their mates with a pirate copy, with seemingly no consequences, so they go out and mod their system and pirate games.
The reason people care about this, is because Microsoft aren't banning people to stop piracy, they are banning people to sell consoles - why do you think it happens near Christmas and on the release of their biggest game for that year?
---
If game developers don't want their games hacked they should stick to the PSN, PS3 or XBL platforms. They are the safest options for developers and fortunately the best options for dev's with big and small budgets.
11/22/09
I agree with you on one point--the mass bannings definitely have a sale-slated interest to them. But saying they're trying to sell consoles instead of stopping piracy doesn't make sense...they're likely doing both. I mean, they get a cut from each software sale which is likely profit to them, but don't they still take a loss on each console sale even now?
11/22/09
Microsoft aren't trying to stop me pirating, if they were, they would be banning me the minute I log in with pirate copy of a game.
My point isn't that they shouldn't cut pirates offline, it's that they should do it the second they log in with a pirated game. Which would make the ban mean something and prevent most of the piracy.
The only people who would pirate games at that point are the people who don't care about xbox live anyway and those are the people who the bans don't effect anyway.
#speakup
11/22/09
We don't have precise knowledge on how M$ actually builds a case internally for marking a profile and/or console as bannable. We don't even know if they can instantly detect a pirated game while a profile is connect to Live. They might have to parse through a lot of data, connection trends, possibly even a profile across multiple xboxes. Maybe they even track the IP address the suspected consoles are coming from. Maybe legally (or through their internal legal logic) they need to look for multiple offenses before actually denying the user the paid service of Xbox Live Gold.
These assumptions I'm making on extra steps they may go through before banning are more likely than the ones you're making. Just the fact that M$ is stepping up very quickly to challenge even the threat of a class action suit shows they've put a lot of consideration into their actions of banning any console which have been playing pirated games.
Anyways, I suggest you actually do mod your Xbox tomorrow, and frequently play lots of pirated games on it. If you time when the banning actually occurs and it does take a year, it would be a very interesting story to write about! Add a chart of console cost vs. projected cost of total software pirated too, so the rest of know how much money you saved over 2010.
#speakup
11/22/09
It has been said on many occasions that Microsoft collect the data and have mass bans. If you do any research you will see that the majority of those banned from xbox live were banned around the release of the three games I mentioned.
#speakup
11/22/09
Microsoft might not be able to detect pirates so quickly and exactly in every case as you seem to think is possible. From an outsider's perspective we don't know precisely their procedures for actually detecting legitimate pirates, how they can tell if a console is modded, if they can determine what kind of mod, and if that actually means any profiles on the console pirate games. Nor do we know their actual policies for marking a profile and / or console, or how long the process actually takes internally.
And on the subject of mass bannings, you're likely right, they probably are orienting them to increase sales. Seems like the kind of logic a corporation would use--they're banning them for piracy anyways, so why not choose a time when they'd really like to play a particular game and be tempted to buy new hardware, Xbox Live subscription etc. I don't think that's the nicest or most honest policy to take on, but I don't think pirating is very nice or honest either.
#speakup
11/22/09
Because if they banned them the second they detected the hack, people would see that their mate who has just modded his machine is now banned and then they wouldn't get their machine modded. It's not like they have a million people out there modding consoles, they are taking them to their friends and shops to get done.
Microsoft should crack down straight away but like I said, it's not about stopping piracy for them. It's about moving machines and using pirates as a way to do it.
Imagine if a car manufacturer perfected the technology to sense the second a person started speeding and at that point the owner of the car was fined for speeding - do you think people would keep speeding? Or would it stop people because they know that they will be charged.
#speakup
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
I wonder who would win...
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
Put in another way, if you walk into a store, the owner/manager can ask you to leave for whatever reason they want to give. That doesn't mean they get to take a baseball bat to you and you got to take it.
11/22/09
If you bought a copy of Halo 3, you could still play it just fine, which sort of breaks your analogy. No hardware is "destroyed in the process."
Those don't justify a class action lawsuit.
11/22/09
Analogy (I know everyone loves them!): You buy an iPod from a store. You go home. You try to put some songs on it, possibly not from the official iTunes client (although maybe you did purchase them legally, and also maybe not), but in some way you technically violate the EULA of the device by not using iTunes (this is to make my point, I don't know what the actual EULA states), so now your iPod disables itself from being able to have songs copied to it, but everything else still works. But WHAT'S THE POINT? That was one of the main features (for some users). It's useless now, to that particular person, as the Xbox systems are now to some. Some people primarily play online.
Just saying.
11/22/09
11/22/09
The hard drive? Nope. If you buy another 360 and move the hard drive, it'll work just fine. Obviously, that's not the preferable outcome, but I don't have much sympathy for the people whining about being caught pirating.
11/22/09
It's more like the store owner caught you stuffing candy in your coat pockets. They kicked you out and barred you from the store. No bat involved. You can still use your coat and stuff it with all the candy you want but just not at their store.
11/22/09
The 360 can still play games. It can still play pirated games, even. You just can't get on Live or install them to your hard drive to make it easier to pirate the games. That's it.
11/22/09
This situation is like modding your ipod and not being able to connect to itunes. You can still get music on there just not from Apple.
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
And seriously people need to stop with this conspiracy theory that the bannings are to increase hardware sales. If its such a large number of XBL users pirating merchandise that having them buy new boxes would be a sizable number then as MS Im more concerned with the money we have lossed on game sales then what we are making off new hardware. Learn the business. You make money off of the software. They make a profit off of the consoles NOW but it is nothing compared to the software sales. And if youre wondering, as I saw someone did the other day, why it these bannings seem to coincide with the release of mega games like MW2, H3, and the like, its because those are the games hackers and pirates want. People are hacking popular games. MS doesnt have to worry about a million people pirating Viva Pinata.
11/22/09
Sounds fair enough right? I guess so, but why disable the console in that way, essentially rendering it useless to both the existing customer, and to any customer who might be able to use it second-hand? Way to make sure our landfills get filled quicker, Microsoft! It's just such a waste of hardware. Banning something in a way where it can at least be undone through proper channels would be wiser. Or they could ban Live accounts and require the customer contact them to have it unbanned, on the condition that the customer PAY to have the console shipped to Microsoft and have the modification (depending on what it is) undone, and sent back to the customer, having the customer paying the full cost. If they get sent a new console instead, Microsoft can at least make sure the modded one gets recycled properly.
I think that's VERY reasonable.
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
Ah I didn't know that.
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
Again this is simple. Dont fucking steal.
#speakup
11/22/09
Yes, many of these people who were banned are thieves. I'm not suggesting they're perfect angels in the slightest and they got what came to them. However, they got more than what should have been given to the point of overkill.
If there is theft, you report it to the police and you make sure the thief is reported- in this case, denied further service. You don't go pulling "eye for an eye" crap. If any of us did this in response to a stolen good or a property that we made or sold, we'd be locked up.
#speakup
11/22/09
And as far as unbanning the consoles, what would you have them do? Take the console back, crack it open, scour through it for any unauthorized parts, and then send it back out into the world? At what cost? Would it be worth it? Think about it, even if you have the violator pay for it all, as you suggest, Microsoft would still have to figure out how to identify and safely remove/undo every kind of hack out there, and train a bunch of people to actually do that. There's no way that would be worth the expense and hassle.
Or do you expect them to just unban it for the next person to use it, even though it's still modded? Get real. The console is modded, and it's too much trouble to make sure it's unmodded, so it just never gets to go on Live again. That's the consequence modders face.
11/22/09
But I'm talking about what else the bans have done that are a problem and really irks me. If this was "Well, you can't play online" fine. But it's "we're gonna now gimp your system after kicking you off"
#speakup
11/22/09
11/22/09
Ban the console? You can still play Peggle, just not on your modded Xbox.
11/22/09
Hand it to the police? The reason companies set up TOS' and other measures is to safeguard themselves from theft in the simplest swiftest way. The police are not going to go "Ok MS who stole from you?" "Oh here's the list of offenders. Its over a million and they are all over the US and abroad. Thanks guys".
Fuck this is the problem with world. Common sense must have been the Golden Child that got axed when Eddie Murphy started doing kids movies.
MS and any other company tells you the same shit. If you steal we reserve the right to outright nuke your box. Its only fair because there is no other logistical way to stop these individuals. And even with these measures you see how many people still do it because its a crime they think they can get away with. This isnt a case where a big company is stomping on the little guy. This is a case where a bunch of asshat wanna be criminals with porr reasoning abilites are getting caught doing what they intended to do. Steal. And it doesnt help that people like you actually think they have a leg to stand for and the rest of us should be outraged by whatshappening to them. The outrage I feel is 2 fold. One that this many people do this shit and two that people still think its ok.
#speakup
11/22/09
@MechaTama31: Even the functionality of connecting to your computer gets hampered. They do far more than just ban you from XBL.
My biggest worry and concern is that they even HAVE this power, that at the drop of the hat they can destroy a good part of something you've invested in, and we best stay on its good side if we wish to keep the things we own in good condition.
#speakup
11/22/09
#speakup
11/22/09
Argue all you like for the good of the company, but Jay and the whole 3rd party hardware ban that happened a while back does NO good for us as consumers, and while this is nicely camouflaged with piracy, remember about all that wonderful DRM that has made our lives so much better on the PC gaming side what with its rentals and having to plead to the company to give you more codes to use the product you bought. That was also "For Preventing Piracy" if you so recall.
#speakup
11/22/09
As for dragging DRM into this again youre diverting from the topic at hand. But DRM and company policies are in place to prevent theft. Alot of PC users who have issue with DRM are the same people who thieving. Normal consumers are fine with loading a game on one or two comps. They dont need five or six keys and they sure as shit have no clue about thieving.
#speakup
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
Other than that, I can't think of anything. Buying off Craigslist or eBay is a horrible idea now.
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/22/09
11/21/09
But Activision also knows that nobody will take a $40 purchase to the court. Which is why they get away with it playing dirty. Somebody should really sue them for some killer punitive damage for stepping on customer rights like that.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/21/09
If Valve set the prices, you only need to look at Valves past release history to see that they wouldn't fuck over the consumer with the price gouging that Activision is doing.
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
Btw does anyone know why speakup is appearing at the bottom of all my comments?
11/21/09
Let's just say that until Valve enforce worldwide pricing on the games they distribute and there is a live price conversion system that pulls its numbers from say xe.com, we are all gonna get ripped off sooner or later.
11/21/09
11/21/09
@StressedOutCat: Left 4 Dead 2 is a Valve game, what I meant was they don't set the price on the third party games they sell like EA games or THQ games, on their own games of course they set the prices, as for it being $74 where you live I have no idea why that would be.
11/21/09
#speakup
11/21/09
Just look at the other games on Steam, most are inline with the American pricing, only a few stand out, the main offender seems to be Activision.
I remember back when CoD4 came out, it was $84 US then the market crashed and it was still that price, once you converted it, us Aussies ended up having to pay $140 AU for that game. It only went down to a decent price once the market recovered (here is Australia anyway).
Another offender is 2K, how they removed Borderlands from the Australian store only to put it back up at the discounted price of $80 US, almost double what it was originally on there for.
11/20/09
If this is the case then they should totally ban every PS3 and 360 owner who got their copy for £26 in Sainsbury's... Dicks.
11/20/09
11/20/09