Xbox Live Class Action Being Investigated 453
eldavojohn writes "Were you negatively affected by the recent ban on Xbox Live for modifying hardware you own? Did you modify yours for homebrew or altering things you paid for and not to engage in piracy? Abington IP would like to hear from you and may be able to help. From that page: 'If you are an Xbox Live subscriber, had your modified Xbox console banned from Xbox Live, were not refunded a prorated sum for the time left on your subscription, or have experienced other problems as a result of being banned, and would like to participate in a class action against Microsoft, please submit your information below.' Someone is finally standing up for the legitimate hobbyists. Should Microsoft worry?"
lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
These class-action lawsuits only serve one purpose - to make the lawfirm originating the class action a boatload of cash.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep those that where banned may get $5 if that. The law firm will get a private jet and maybe an island out of it.
Please folks the rules are you can not get on live if you mode your box. You still have your XBox you just can not play it on line anymore.
I hope this gets tossed out so fast your head spins.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Informative)
and $5 more in my pocket for shooting off an email or signing a paper is fine by me, even if someone else thinks maybe I'm entitled to $50.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>>>I know people who had their consoles banned for no reason and MS told them to go take a leap.
Stealing Is Our Profit
by Microsoft
(sung to the theme of MASH)
.
Through electronic net I see
Visions of monopoly,
The pains I can incur are fun,
Better than owning a gun...
That stealing is our profit,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you are what is wrong with America. Many of these lawsuit are unjustified and cost the companies millions to fight. Essentially we pay more for every product and service because companies have to build the cost of fighting litigation in, the only problem is the LAWYERS collect that extra built in cost, not the consumer. Your short sightedness is amazing. Have fun paying $50 more for the next X-box so you can get your $5 class action settlement on the next infraction, years after paying the extra $50.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if they get to buy Fantasy Island out of the settlement money, if a law firm is able, via class action or any other means, to make it illegal for a company to screw with my console and remove functionality from it simply because it was modded (i.e. not because I was cheating, pirating, or because my mod 'broke it') then I say full steam ahead and find someone to yell "Ze Plane! Ze Plane!" cause it's worth it to prove that what I buy is MINE.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't take any functionality from your XBox at all. They booted you off THEIR NETWORK.
When you first got on the network the agreement was that if you mod your XBox your booted off.
You AGREED TO THAT and now it has happened.
It is COMPLETELY legal and frankly fair.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The data on the HDD is now tainted, as a lot of what modders do is around cheating achivements by trading hacked save games, this seems reasonable to me.
And gamerscore has nothing to do with the data on the drive - I could wipe out all my saves tonight and I'd still have all my earned achievements and gamerscore - they're stored on the XBL servers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not that this is the end of the world, but it is to some people. If you earn 5,000 GS points since being banned the only way to show it off is to bring your buddies to your house and show th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because it's possible to use hacks to artificially inflate your gamerscore. It's quite right that MS should be booting pirates off their network in this manner.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd wager that those functions have "*requires an active connection to Xbox Live" somewhere near them in the manual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>You AGREED TO THAT and now it has happened.
P.S.
In the Paypal case the paypal lawyers made that same argument ("users signed the end user agreement and license"), which the Federal judge negated by saying citizens can Not sign-away legally-protected rights. In effect he nullified paypal's EULA. I fully-expect the same to happen with Microsoft's Xbox Live EULA.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, but I'm pretty sure there's a legal right to modify your hardware as you see fit...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they're not stopping you from doing so here. They're just saying that once you've modified that hardware, you're no longer welcome to connect to their network. It might be a crummy and lazy way of dealing with some of the potential problems of modified hardware, but it doesn't make any sense that it should be illegal.
The obligatory car analogy follows:
You can buy a car and modify it in pretty much any way that you wish, but there are plenty of things that you might do to it that would then make it illeg
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not.
EULAs have gotten out of hand, and they are not reasonable to read. The only way to change the industry so it is reasonable is through lawsuits. Sad, but true. They also disable other non network related features as well.
Plus they advertise it as part of the system.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because the years of lawsuits up till now have done a lot to make EULA less obnoxious.
Oh, wait, quite the opposite is true. Inconceivably, industry has built so much around the idea of EULA that now courts have been siding with them apparently out of fear of the disruption that would be caused by forcing a change, even in cases where the EULA is being blatantly used to abuse the customer.
If you want to reform EULA, take it to the legislature. Trying to change the law through the judicial system is folly.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps. But the kicker here is that the Xbox 360 is unable to be used on any other network. Microsoft has taken key steps to ensure that 360s cannot be used over VPNs or any other network other than a local LAN. Individual 360s pass encrypted keys to one another upon first connection and if they do not receive an appropriate replay in 30ms, a connection is not made. It was a blatant attempt to disable alternative services like Xlink Kai and completely lock down online play on the console.
We are dealing with a Walled Garden here. Microsoft is exerting complete control over 360 consoles regardless of who owns them. If it were possible to connect to VPNs like Xlink Kai or others, this ban would be a problem. But it's not. Microsoft sold these guys a console which they said could be used to play online games, and now these console can't be used to so much as send a private message.
This is akin to Linksys deciding that installing Linux on your router means they can disable it from connecting WAN's anymore. Sure, you can use it in a LAN, but is this the product you paid for?
I'm sympathetic to Microsoft's position with regard to cheating and glitching on their network(Though I'm sceptical modded consoles are a major player here). I'm also sympathetic with regard to piracy on modded consoles. But they dug themselves into a hole here when they locked down the online capabilities of their machine without advertising that fact.
Personally, I feel that paying to play online is a rip off anyway. Perhaps this will convince people that subscribing to a game service that treats you like a consumer instead of a player isn't in their long term interest. If you're relying on someone else's servers to play your games, then it's only a matter of time before you won't be able to play those games anymore.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Interesting)
"Perhaps. But the kicker here is that the Xbox 360 is unable to be used on any other network."
Which is why I don't own one.
Nobody put a gun to your head and made you buy an XBox. I'm a PC gamer because I appreciate the freedom to use the FULL INTERNET, and not be locked down to some service like XBox Live. When the orig. XBox was first coming out with online functionality, I thought "Oh, cool. Consoles are finally catching up to what PCs have been able to do for 5 or 6 years now. Better late than never, I guess". Then I read that even though it used the Internet, it would only connect to Microsoft's servers, and I thought, "That's just like Microsoft - use an Internet connection which can connect to the whole world, but then lock you to connecting to 1 server."
Seriously, people need to start taking responsibility for their buying decisions. You know what Microsoft and Apple are like, yet people moan and whine about how they lock what their users can do with the XBox or iPhone. If you don't like the restrictions the seller is putting on you, just don't buy what they are selling. If enough people do that, the problem will fix itself. But, too many people want to run to the government after the fact and complain.
Do I think this is kind of bone-headed on the part of Microsoft? Yes, I do. But, I agree that it's their network, and they can basically set the terms of use for it. Caveat emptor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps. But the kicker here is that the Xbox 360 is unable to be used on any other network. Microsoft has taken key steps to ensure that 360s cannot be used over VPNs or any other network other than a local LAN. Individual 360s pass encrypted keys to one another upon first connection and if they do not receive an appropriate replay in 30ms, a connection is not made. It was a blatant attempt to disable alternative services like Xlink Kai and completely lock down online play on the console.
We are dealing with a Walled Garden here. Microsoft is exerting complete control over 360 consoles regardless of who owns them. If it were possible to connect to VPNs like Xlink Kai or others, this ban would be a problem. But it's not. Microsoft sold these guys a console which they said could be used to play online games, and now these console can't be used to so much as send a private message.
Isn't that kind of the point? You buy into the entire system, both their hardware and their network are linked. If you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to enter their walled garden. The Xbox isn't a monopoly (where this argument might hold water), play your games on PC or a different console.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of what Microsoft did here may not be all that legal, no matter how many capital letters you use.
In many states, like Washington state where Microsoft is incorporated, this is what is called "self help" in regards to contract law. One party can not deprive another party of their property because they have decided that there was a breach of contract. If they think the other party is in violation of an agreement then they can take them to court or arbitration. A cable company could not seize your DVD player because you had not payed your cable bill- even if they had originally sold you the DVD player in whatever strange universe that would happen.
The Xbox 360 was purchased outright and in full with no outstanding debt to Microsoft. Now, I agree that access to the Xbox live services and network are rightly subject to the whims of Microsoft. That's absolutely fine with me. The problem is that they disabled unrelated functionality to punish large swathes of people for possibly being pirates. My roommate had installed a much larger hard disk in his Xbox 360 several months back. He did this because he owned several games with long load times and had also purchased hours upon hours of movies off of the xbox live marketplace. His reward for upgrading the device he owned and purchasing what I thought were stupid amounts of product off of the marketplace, his machine now has had its functionality reduced in a significant way.
Yeah, I think a class action suit sounds about right. Granted only a minority of those people affected have any moral legs to stand on- I would expect there to be enough of them for a class action. The fact that functions which had nothing to do with piracy concerns, and in some cases nothing to do with the Xbox Live service, were disabled is pretty damning here. They could have probably accomplished their goals by simply banning people from Xbox Live- which is what it seems that a lot of people here think is all they did. That would have been fine by me and fine by the law. It's not the extent of what they did and they may have to pay for it in the form of a large settlement.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Informative)
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
So, tell me - when you signed up for the subscription, did the terms you agreed to include language to the effect that if you modify your console you will be banned from the network without refund? If so, then you're going to have to modify your analogy a little.
Oh, and "I don't know, I didn't read the terms" is not a valid answer to the question. If you don't know, find out. If you don't know and the answer is "yes, it did", then you're failure to know is your own fault.
Only if the terms of the agreement didn't allow them to terminate the subscription without refund is it theft.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and "I don't know, I didn't read the terms" is not a valid answer to the question. If you don't know, find out. If you don't know and the answer is "yes, it did", then you're failure to know is your own fault.
This is true. But there is another avenue worth pursuing: even when parties explicitly stipulate what the remedy for a breach of contract is within the contract itself, courts can be persuaded to review it to make sure that the remedy is a reasonable one given the damage caused by the breach. If not, it might be deemed a "penalty clause" which courts do not like to enforce.
So, part of the inquiry will probably be: is being banned from the XBL network a remedy that is appropriately tailored to remedy the damages caused by the breach? Maybe the answer will be "yes" if it can be shown that most modded XBoxes are used to cheat and that kicking cheaters off is a reasonable remedy.
But a court might also be persuaded to look more closely; typically, they will require that the remedy be tailored to the degree of breach. So the fact that modding for innocent reasons is not distinguished from cheating/piracy might be grounds for no enforcement of the provision.
Judicial scrutiny will be all the more strict because they're looking at an EULA (or, generally, contracts of adhesion [thefreedictionary.com]) than when the terms were actually bargained over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Informative)
>>>They booted you off THEIR NETWORK.
And failed to refund upto 2 years of Xbox Live subscription, or refund dollars for games that no longer work without the online connection.
As a clarification, they did not boot you off of Live, they booted the console off of Live. You still have a subscription, your modified hardware just can't use it. Your subscription will still work on a legitimate device.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
a law firm is able, via class action or any other means, to make it illegal for a company to screw with my console
Are you new? Class-action suits don't make anything illegal. In nearly all cases, the result of a class-action is a settlement in which the defendant gives an assload of cash to the plaintiff's lawyers, those lawyers give out coupons for 50 cents off the defendant's products to all of the class members, and the defendant admits no fault. Since no fault was admitted, and the case never actually went to trial, there's no precedent set, and the defendant and everyone else can keep doing whatever it was they
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And if the Live service agreement states that you cannot use modded hardware (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I don't know), I don't see why they should have to refund your subscription fee, either.
Exactly. While people should be able to mod their consoles, Microsoft's TOS clearly stated that modded consoles were not allowed on XBL. Dunno how one can see this lawsuit succeeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has disabled features of the console that are used during offline play. This is the problem. They are doing more than just banning you from using the service.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, you're incorrect.
Why do you think that?
Personal experience? Or something you just read online? Or worse, something you read on slashdot?
My own personal experience shows GP to be 100% correct. Only the couple games downloaded from XBL disappeared from the HD. All the games copied from real game discs are still there and work.
You seem extremely passionate about saying "MS bans other stuff!" but not one of your 8 posts on this thread have said anything else, no description of what else is banned, nor any personal experiences or other peoples stories being related from you.
I am very curious why you think it is not possible to do what hundreds of people are still doing right this very second, and what exactly you are getting out of saying that.
I realize my own personal experiences are worth jack and shit to you, and yours of course would be worth the same to me/us, but you don't even give one! Nor any other reason you would say what you have been saying...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you tried running the games installed on your harddrive? I am sure that when you do, it will fail and you will be required to run it from the disc, and be unable to install it to the hdd.
That is scary, xbox-scene is usually a very reputable and trustworthy source.
I have indeed run games installed and they work (The ones installed from a game disc)
The only games on HD that did not run were downloaded from XBL. That type of game not working is more-or-less to be expected.
However there are also exceptions to that rule. Games you download from XBL that are offline playable STILL WORK.
One xbox we were playing on two nights ago, which is banned from XBL, has a copy of Zombie Apocalypse download
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
And isn't it that the particular xbox 360 is banned from Live, not your account?
So your subscription is still valid. Your 'hobbyist' xbox is banned but you could sign up a clean one and continue on with life.
I'm no fan of MS but I hope they crush this class action lawsuit. They provide a service. 'You' did something that broke the terms of the service agreement. They boot the offending hardware off of the service. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to pick out the guilty party here.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
You paid a lot of money for a service and its add-ons without knowing the terms under which that service could be terminated? Why would you put yourself in that position?
Don't get me wrong, it's not just you. We've become a society of fools just waiting to be parted from our money. We're so addicted to convenience that we agree to pages of legalese without making the first effort to understand what we're agreeing to, just hoping that if it turns out to have a term we don't like the courts will take pity on us and overturn the agreement.
Of course, we get the full benefit of every agreement that doesn't come to that, which makes us no better than an insurance company that happily takes your premiums until you file a claim and then finds an excuse to retroactively terminate your policy.
Hell, when I bought my house the lender didn't put a copy of the mortgage agreement in my hands until signing day, and then acted surprised when I actually read it. For a freaking mortgage - an agreement that will be with me for potentially 30 years and will involve more money than any other agreement I've ever signed.
Yeah, the outcome for some people who modified their consoles sucks for them, I think everyone gets that. That alone doesn't make it necessarily wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that it is their right on the part of banning from Xbox Live specifically. However, the machines also had some other functionality removed. There may be others, but one function reportedly removed from banned xboxes was the ability to install games to the hard drive.
In my eyes, this would be akin to Nvidia remotely disabling the S-video port on your video card for overclocking it. Just banning you from Xbox live would have been more like banning you from a Team Fortress 2 server for using hacked map
Re: (Score:2)
I got over $50 from the Paypal lawsuit, and $20 from the CD/record company lawsuit. That seems reasonable to me, considering I didn't really lose that much money in the first place.
Also class action lawsuits are more about punishing the company. For example if Paypal and the CD Cartel has not been sued, then they would have continued business-as-usual, stealing money from customers' accounts and price-fixing CDs to be $18 or more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But even if the law firm gets 90% of the cache, the money still comes from the defendant. So a class-action still have the effect of discouraging future sleaze. So in that way, a lawsuit such as this is better than nothing (as long as you think the defendant's behavior should be discouraged).
Re: (Score:2)
Attorneys fees in class actions have to be approved by the court, and they generally run around 25%-33%. And class actions are hideously expensive to run, a decent sized one will consume several thousand hours of the plaintiffs' lawyer's time, and at least a few hundred thousand dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:4, Funny)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chairs are expensive, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. President. I suppose it probably does cost a pretty penny to have all those Secret Service people opening the door for him.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
Sir - With respect,
Class actions typically serve three purposes, none of which is making lawyers rich (though that may sometimes happens, sometimes it bankrupts law firms, too). These purposes are:
1. Modify corporate / government behaviour
2. Increase the efficiency of the resolution of a dispute
3. Increase the access to justice of those who would not be able to afford any
It is not insightful to say that class-action lawsuits serve one purpose: to make a "lawfirm (sic) a boatload of cash". It is uninformed, misleading, pejorative, and unsubstantiated - which in my opinion is the opposite of insightful.
There are innumerable examples of class actions fulfilling their purposes, from recognizing the rights of veterans to appropriate levels of compensation, to deterring irresponsible behaviour likely to cause man-made environmental disasters, through compensating multitudes of individuals for small wrongs that would be otherwise incomprehensibly uneconomical to litigate.
Further, a class action is simply a vehicle for resolving the rights of many individuals who would otherwise be forced to engage in individual litigation. It does not change substantive rights to any sort of compensation, though it may change (and generally eliminate, for beneficiaries in a plaintiffs' class) the cost of resolving a legitimate dispute that would otherwise simply never be addressed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with class actions is that they are opt-in for restitution, but opt-out for forfeiture of private cause.
If a class action comes along and you don't get wind of it until it's settled, then you're out BOTH your share of the settlement AND the opportunity to pursue a private claim.
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Insightful)
"does not change substantive rights to any sort of compensation"
In theory, that's true. In practice, it's completely false.
First of all, if the court figures you fit the definition of the class and you do nothing (say, because the notice of the suit gets misplaced and you never hear about it), then you lose your right to sue over the matter - after all, you were supposedly already represented - and yet you get zero compensation. But let's ignore that and assume we're talking about people who knowingly participate in the class ...
Assuming there is a settlement paid (and by the way, in this instance I agree with those who think there shouldn't be, but I've seen a lot of bogus "consumer protection" class actions get paid off so I'm guessing this one will be too), we could debate whether the lawyers' share of such settlement will be fair. I believe the typical split is excessive, just as you'd expect when the class members aren't at the negotiating table.
But more interesting than that, the plaintifs' cut will not be allocated to guarantee that everyone gets paid. Instead a fund will be set up, and paid on a first come first served basis until it runs out. If you're part of the class and the fund runs out before you get paid, then your right to compensation damned well does get changed.
Plus, if you do get paid, you're unlikely to get paid in cash. When Apple lost a class action, the court let them get by with giving out coupons, driving business to them from customers that otherwise might have been pissed enough to walk away. Same deal when Columbia House lost. It's pretty much the typical structure of the payout. That's not a settlement; it's a marketing promotion. Yeah, that deters bad behavior. You bet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a serious problem, though, with the Class action system in our country today. The things you list are indeed the 'benefits' of the class action, but I've seen too many class action settlements in which the 'compensation' not only was worth only about $5, but it wasn't even $5 *cash*. I've seriously received mailing (one about a Verizon Wireless class action) where the 'compensation' was a *coupon*. That's right, to get my 'share' of the settlement, I'd have to *spend more money* with the party which
Re:lol @ 'finally standing up' (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has done much more than prevent access to the service. These are other features that have been blocked:
* Cannot install games to the HDD
* Cannot use Windows Media Centre extender
* Cannot access netflix rentals
* Cannot download game updates and extra content that are used in offline play
There isn't really any homebrew on the 360 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There isn't really any homebrew on the 360 (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they replaced the Drives that were crap.
My Friend has a 20GB pro That I would never loan a DVD to because that thing is a scratch machine.
Also there are collectors like me who like to play backups whenever possible.
Hell there are even multiple copies of sealed old games I still have.
I hope M$ pays the price for this massive b& and I was never even banned.
It is not the pirates I care about it is those who hack and cheat the games, rage quit, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
had they installed cheap pads that cost a few pennies in some of the older systems DVD drive
Pads [llamma.com].
There was an Article on the whole problem but I can't find it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. Please research the kernel exploits that were found previous to the latest one that allow installation of new bootloaders, etc using jtag programming and reading methods.
Also, are you aware that if your dvd drive dies and your console is out of warranty, that you can purchase a new DVD drive for about $25 on ebay and install it yourself by "spoofing" your old drive? Yet, this violates M$ policies as they want you to pay them $100 to fix it for you.
Piracy is hardly the only reason people hack
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The DVD drive mods that people got banned for were all about playing 'backups' which really means pirated games in 99% of these cases.
Which still leaves 1% that were playing legal backups. QUESTION: If my CD or DVD falls apart, will Microsoft, Nintendo, or any other company provide a free replacement at a nominal fee (say $2)? If not then they have ZERO right to stop per from making a backup to protect my investment (per the U.S. Court).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that all there is to prevent pirated or "backup" copies? The DVD drive firmware?? I thought you had to chip the console to do that. It sounds more like they wanted to punish those who took it upon themselves to fix the crappy DVD drives that scratch discs all the time. Please correct me if I am incorrect about this.
As if it's limited to that... (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, I know people who had their consoles banned for no reason and MS told them to go take a leap.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the case of someone buying a used/refurb console from a place like Gamespot. Gamespot plugs it in and tests it and it works fine. They then sell it. Caustomer take box home and hooks it up to the network. Seems to work fine for several months. Then one day they get banned. Turns out used Xbox had a mod in it, but was not caught in earlier sweeps. Customer is left with degraded functionality through no fault of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Worry? About what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
They should not worry.
Nothing will happen here. The terms of service clearly state that to play on Xbox Live, you are not allowed to modify your xbox360. The accounts are still present and valid. The consoles are simply banned from accessing the service. Hobbyists can still be hobbyists. The Xbox360 will still work, but the Xbox Live service will not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it states you are not allowed to modify ANY of the hardware.
Third party battery pack? Modified hardware - banned - give us more money now to keep playing.
Re:Worry? About what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, Microsoft should be worried.
"The Xbox360 will still work, but the Xbox Live service will not." --- False. Parts of offline play are disable.
If you READ the class action lawsuit, it has nothing to do with the banning from XBL, but rather the offline features that were disabled/modified as a result.
Very interesting article regarding the bannings: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2397134/analysis_why_microsofts_plan_to_ban.html
"I was at GameStop the other day and listened to a customer's questions about Microsoft's banning of modded X-Box 360s. The worker tried to explain that this banning was for those people that hacked their X-Box 360. The customer was worried that if her child downloaded any kind of content through the X-Box 360 that this might constitute a reason for a banning for her son's system. She was confused, so she decided to purchase a PS3 instead. I was told by the manager at that GameStop that this was not an isolated incident. They had received over 50 calls that day about the banning.
What Microsoft appears to have forgotten by earmarking this time of year for the banning of modded X-Box 360s is that most of the systems that are purchased this time of year is by parents and grandparents. The game systems that are purchased this time of year are usually done by those that do not have a firm grasp on the industry. Simply put, the systems are usually purchased by people that are fairly clueless about video games."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain why a company can ban you from service because you modified your machine? It makes sense to ban if they were connecting to their live network using dubious means, or trying to use the network in illegal ways... But I don't understand why a fourth party can ban how you using a third party's product?
There is nothing preventing you from modifying hardware you own (the xbox itself), and that is both legal and MS can't really say squat about it (Specifically, they can say all the squat they want, but have less than no legal backing)
However, as xbox live is a subscription service, they can set forth rules to follow in order to be allowed to use it. Typically this is called Terms of Service, or ToS.
Being a service, they can dictate any rules they want and choose whom to do business with, at lease as long
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look - it comes down to this: To get on Xbox live, you have to agree to the terms of service. The terms of service is a contract. The banned users agreed to it. If anybody violates the terms of the contract by modifying their Xbox in any way, Microsoft is more than justified in enforcing its contract, meaning they can cut off violators of its TOS.
It's simple contract law. The service requires an unmodded xbox. If a consumer doens't hold up their end of the contract, Microsoft has no obligation to hold
Re: (Score:2)
Except the case has nothing to do with access to xbox live. Microsoft has disabled features that are used while the box is OFFLINE. I didn't sign any agreement about what I will do with the box while I am not connected to XBL.
Make way for the ambulance chaser! (Score:5, Insightful)
Should Microsoft worry?
Not in the least. Microsoft did not tell you that you cannot use your modded Xbox, nor did they do anything to it that prevents you from using it. All they did was said you can't use it on servers that they own. And there are rulings all the way up to SCOTUS that says he who owns the servers controls who is allowed to use them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't read the article and I'm not a lawyer, but I do pretend sometimes.
Re:Make way for the ambulance chaser! (Score:5, Informative)
No, they haven't terminated any agreement. The accounts are still live and valid, and if the modders want to log in from an unmodded console they're still welcome. Remember: it's the CONSOLE that's banned, not the user.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument would only be valid if they could still use the xbox for everything else except connecting to the MS network, they can not. Since they do NOT have a choice of networks, and can no longer play or activate many, if not all, single player games they have broken basic functionality of the xbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This case is a loser. All it will do is (1) waste a bunch of money on legal expenses, thereby raising the cost of providing XBL, and (2) annoy MS and possibly encourage them to make it even harder to run homebrew.
As this is a class action case, I'm betting that xbox users arn't wasting any money. That is is simply a lawfirm that thought they could make some money or gain some publicity (with the purpose of then making some more money).
Other than that I agree with everything you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft did not tell you that you cannot use your modded Xbox, nor did they do anything to it that prevents you from using it.
Apparently this banning also disables your hard drive [zotaku.com]. If it were just Xbox live it affected, MS would pretty clearly be in the right. Sabotaging someones hardware is not justifiable any way you slice it.
Nothing to worry about (Score:2, Redundant)
As f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Microsoft basically "bricked" several offline features of the console. The lawsuit has nothing to do with access to the XBL service and everything to do with the additional removal of features totally unrelated to xbox live.
Ooh look! A big target! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hobbyist support my ass.
As a lawyer he's thinking "Ooh! 100,000 people banned, that's a big target to profit from!"
As a hobbyist, if I want to run whatever software, I pay: $100 for a motherboard, $130 for a small case and power supply, $50 for a hard drive, $30 for an optical drive, $0-200 for an operating system, $50 for a wireless keyboard and mouse, $80 for a wireless gaming controller, $15 for a DVI cable.
Anybody guess what I bought to run homebrew software? A fecking computer!
An xBox is not a computer
Terms of use seem pretty clear (Score:3, Informative)
The terms of use seem pretty clear:
The Service may only be accessed with an original Xbox, an Xbox 360 console, a personal computer, or other device authorized by us, or by logging into your account via Xbox.com . You agree that you are using only authorized software and hardware to access the Service, that your software and hardware have not been modified in any unauthorized way (e.g., through unauthorized repairs, unauthorized upgrades, or unauthorized downloads
Refund Policies. Unless otherwise provided by law or in connection with any particular Service offer, all charges are non-refundable and the costs of any returns will be at your expense. There are, however, certain circumstances under which you may be entitled to a refund for certain Services.
So what part of that seems unclear enough that it warrants a lawsuit? If you don't agree with terms of use, don't sign up for the service then whine when they catch you violating the terms of service and terminate your account.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What part about removing MS functionality not related to Xbox Live do you not understand?
One might want to think twice... (Score:3, Insightful)
before signing a form admitting one's xbox was modded in the first place.
Not just banned from XBox Live... (Score:5, Informative)
I've been reading the argument that people have just been banned from XBL, because modifying your console somehow violates the TOS of XBL.
However, this time the ban does not just kick you off online multiplayer, it also disables functionality to install games on the included HDD! Games already installed on that HDD will not be accessible anymore. Also, any savegame you continue playing with on the banned console will get tagged with the result that you can't copy it to any other (banned or unbanned) consoles anymore.
Since a lot of people bought the Xbox360 with the ability to install games on the internal HDD right out of the box it can be argued that MS impaired the users' hardware in some way.
Also: it is rumored that it is possible for MS to band your console through future (mandatory) updates on game discs, even if you never played online. The technical capabilites are there, but if they ever start doing that their XBL-TOS-argument will be seriously flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if MS sent out game discs that disabled 360s who were not on live and were not following XBL-TOS then I would think there would be a strong case to sue them. I myself would disagree with that 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
However, this time the ban does not just kick you off online multiplayer, it also disables functionality to install games on the included HDD! Games already installed on that HDD will not be accessible anymore
So what? The HD install feature only exists to speed up load times, you still need the original disc in the drive to play. That is, if you haven't modded the box. See where they're going with this? If you modded your box you're still perfectly able to play any legitimate game discs you happen to have.
A
Re: (Score:2)
So what? The HD install feature only exists to speed up load times, you still need the original disc in the drive to play. That is, if you haven't modded the box. See where they're going with this? If you modded your box you're still perfectly able to play any legitimate game discs you happen to have.
No, I don't see where you are going with that. You can continue to play pirated or legitimate games with a banned 360, but you can no longer use the HDD install feature. IMO, the HDD install is primarily used to silence the jet engine DVD drive. Not a big lose, but just something else to annoy those that got banned. Prior bannings simply kicked your console off of Live.
Re: (Score:2)
...it also disables functionality to install games on the included HDD! Games already installed on that HDD will not be accessible anymore....
(Assuming I'm reading this correctly) This would be a huge deal if it weren't for the fact that you can still play these games on any non-modded Xbox360 by signing in and re-downloading them.
That being said, while I understand banning them from signing into xbox live with that modded xbox, I really don't understand locking out the HDD.
Microsoft...Worry? (Score:2)
Should Microsoft worry?"
No...they will just hire Johnny Cochran and use the Chewbacca defense....nothing to see here folks.
Honesty (Score:2)
I love the way they ask "Did you modify yours for homebrew or altering things you paid for and not to engage in piracy?"
Thats a laugh. Now that they have been booted off live I bet everyone is claiming they did not do it for piracy. When they were paying the money for someone to modify a new $200 piece of hardware and void its warranty were they so sure they were never going to play a cheap knock off game then.
I know if I was going to risk someone trashing a new console under those circumstances I would jus
Wheres the 'YouveGottaBeKidding' tag? (Score:2)
Seriously?
Impossible! (Score:2)
re: features being revoked (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What is going on here is people paid for access to a service, and are being refused access to it without being given a refund
No, it is not like that. No PERSON is being refused service - the XBL account is still there. They just have to use a different console to access it.
To take your hotel analogy to the limit, it's like you booked the room and prepaid, but also signed a contract promising that you'd only arrive in a green car, because only green cars are allowed at that hotel. Then you turn up in a red c
Re: (Score:2)
No its more like you payed for a room at the Waldorf Astoria, then they threw the girl you brought with you out on the street cause it looked, convincingly like she's a whore.
About 2 people were having sex with their slutty lookin
Piracy AND Cheating (Score:3, Insightful)
However, aside from preventing piracy