domlolz said:Why are people attacking the BBC solely on that one article? One that was featured on Radio 1, no less. And not actually written by a BBC journalist?
...and this one is theirs and theirs alone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8357050.stmD4Danger said:The BBC are responsible for the content they put on their site.
Psychotext said:...and this one is theirs and theirs alone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8357050.stm
Psychotext said:...and this one is theirs and theirs alone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8357050.stm
sechsterangriff said:Do these users also lose their gold subscription?
It would be funny if you still had to pay Microsoft for live even though you're banned. :lol :lol :lol
There was a post a couple of pages back (in response to one of my own posts) with a wikipedia link pretty much showing that they have held up in court. If there is precedent, that's all it takes. I'm not about to go searching for that specific post, but here you go:QuadCore said:EULAS have not and never will hold up in court.
Some more:Wikipedia said:Whether shrink-wrap licenses are legally binding differs between jurisdictions, though a majority of jurisdictions hold such licenses to be enforceable. At particular issue is the difference in opinion between the courts in Klocek v. Gateway and Brower v. Gateway. Both cases involved a shrink-wrapped license document provided by the online vendor of a computer system. The terms of the shrink-wrapped license were not provided at the time of purchase, but were rather included with the shipped product as a printed document. The license required the customer to return the product within a limited time frame if the license was not agreed to.
So, unless you're talking about international court/non-states law, then I think EULAs have been deemed legally binding. There is precedent.Wikipedia said:Further, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an "I Agree" button in order to install the software.
In the end, any loophole or inconsistency you find in the EULA that allows you to use law to build an argument is perfectly valid in court. Also, most laws will just plain out void EULA statements altogether.Psychotext said:That's valid if you're talking about your legal rights... but I'd really like to see someone try and make it stand up when talking about their rights to access a company's services.
MrPing1000 said:Is there some way I can use this to make more people buy gaming pc's?
sechsterangriff said:Do these users also lose their gold subscription?
Yes, but beyond that wouldn't you need to build a case saying you have a legal right to access a company's services?expy said:In the end, any loophole or inconsistency you find in the EULA that allows you to use law to build an argument is perfectly valid in court. Also, most laws will just plain out void EULA statements altogether.
I think the scale has to be taken into consideration too. But, really, it comes down to how you spin your argument. I know that here in Canada (may differ from province to province) we're pretty well protected against digital rights (EULA, TOS).Psychotext said:Yes, but beyond that wouldn't you need to build a case saying you have a legal right to access a company's services?
Someone tried suing Sony twice for being banned from the PSN, and failed both times. (Though he was banned because he was being an asshole)
:lolSmokey said::lol :lol
do you see what you've done to the posts after you rors ?!
well played sir
minus_273 said:
As has been pointed out already, the data is not corrupt. It still works on the unit the user purchased and modified. The data is simply being invalidated for use on any other unit.QuadCore said:I don't condone piracy, but I personally believe Microsoft messed up big time. Corrupting someone's data is a huge infringement and I do think there will be a class action lawsuit.
Psychotext said:Sorry, yeah, you can't move it once that console has been banned, but it's still working fine there. I think we have different definitions of corrupted though. By that definition, unmovable game saves are also corrupted.
(That's of course ignoring the fact that you can download a working copy of your profile from XBL... which will be recent given you would have to have been playing online to get banned)
Yea, don't think that's exactly the case.Spasm said:And everyone just drop the class action crap. In order to prove a class action lawsuit is warranted, you first have to prove that a class exists, and then it is being wronged. They'll never get past step 1 cause in this case, the class is made up purely of thieves.
bkfount said:from what I've read, you can simply hex edit the profile to uncorrupt it. It's an extra step, but the people who will want to do this can still move profiles from a banned 360.
???expy said:Yea, don't think that's exactly the case.
Care to elaborate? If you're referring to purchasers of secondhand, banned Xboxes, well yes, that is unfortunate, but it isn't Microsoft who's fucked them over. It's the very people you're trying to defend.expy said:Yea, don't think that's exactly the case.
Spasm said:There is 1 reason, and 1 reason only to mod an Xbox 360. Piracy.
Zabka said:Downloading games for free is devaluing the whole experience to them, and as soon they're expected to pay anything it's already too much.
That's who I'm referring to. It's unfortunate, and well, it is Microsoft who screwed them over, willingly or not. I do understand the whole "buyer beware" slogan when buying used, but there isn't a system in place that allows those victims to know about the possible implications when buying used. It is usually in the best interest of the manufacturer to release information to users in a way that can help them understand the consequences of buying their products second-hand.Spasm said:Care to elaborate? If you're referring to purchasers of secondhand banned Xboxes, well yes, that is unfortunate, but it isn't Microsoft who's fucked them over. It's the very people you're trying to defend.
Not completely true, for the majority it is used for piracy, but there is a small (and probably negligible) homebrew community out there.itsgreen said:This.
Was reading that BBC thing... 'there are legit reasons for modding a console'
Well yes. The PSP mods offer added functions through homebrew, but the 360 is only modded for piracy, pure and simple.
Brannon said:And this is why game saves are locked to the banned console. If a profile can be hex-edited to their advantage, so can a game save or other file. Get all the best parts and cars for Forza Motorsport 3 on day one and compete online? Well that's not fair. Take your sweet time in GTA IV then edit your completion time down to win a prize in real life? It could've happened.
If there is a chance that the files could've been altered, then they can't be allowed on Live, and a modded console offers that ability.
Yet another reason for not considering them customers, I think.jetjevons said:I think this is pretty accurate for most pirates.
Purchasers of second hand Xboxes are not Microsoft customers. No money has gone from the unfortunate purchaser's wallet into Microsoft coffers. No transaction has transpired between the two, and as such, Microsoft is not liable. It sucks, it really does, but don't blame Microsoft.expy said:That's who I'm referring to. It's unfortunate, and well, it is Microsoft who screwed them over, willingly or not. I do understand the whole "buyer beware" slogan when buying used, but there isn't a system in place that allows those victims to know about the possible implications when buying used. It is usually in the best interest of the manufacturer to release information to users in a way that can help them understand the consequences of buying their products second-hand.
That are already self-banned off of Xbox Live.Not completely true, for the majority it is used for piracy, but there is a small (and probably negligible) homebrew community out there.
QuadCore said:You don't have to mod your console to mod a save file. You plug in your 360 harddrive to the computer and hex edit it.
johnnysix said:I know it's maybe not a subject people want to talk about but there was widespread piracy on all the biggest systems of each generation since the Playstation. Do people really think this doesn't have an influence on system sales? This is really the first time we've ever had a real visibility of that because of the online capabilities. The DS is huge, do you think piracy plays no part in this? I'm neither advocating piracy nor criticizing these systems, I'm just saying that it seems like a major factor. It's hardly surprising.
At least here in Braziloland the fact that there were pirate games for both the PS1 and PS2 made them popular. I´m pretty sure the number of Playstations here would be much, much smaller without it.iam.rass said:pretty much, its ridiculous down here in aus. I know a few people who pirate. And a middle aged woman I used to work with asked me to help her make an R4 work on her son's DS because I "know about games" and they are "too expensive." so she thought she had a great deal with 20 games on an SD card for $20 at the market. Fuck people.
I really do not understand their logic. So he´s a pirate, but now he´s moving to the only non-pirated system? How is Mr. Rarrrr pretending to "save £600 on games" exactly?Atrophis said:I particularily enjoyed the heart rending storing of a pirate who has "saved £600 on games" but is now considering switching to PS3 because he's been banned.
Youta Mottenai said:Followed by the "Fuck MS, I´ll buy a PS3 now!!!" rant. :lol :lol .
jetjevons said:Pirates are so used to getting games for free on 360 that when MS bans their system they would rather buy another more expensive (and, I believe, currently unhackable) console with a fundamentally different game library than just re-buy an Xbox and start, you know, actually paying for 360 games.
Is this a good example of cognitive dissonance?
bkfount said:I do think a number of people will do this. It's not even that expensive of a transition if they can dump their banned 360 for $100.
The only thing they really stand to lose is a little xbl gold income and possibly some DLC income. That's quite quickly offset even if only a few people go legit.johnnysix said:Microsoft have obviously morally and legally made the right move by banning these boxes, but it may backfire on them to some extent. For a lot of people it will come down to how many people in their online community make the switch.
The thing is, Microsoft aren't really telling them what they can and can't do with their console.Moussi said:This is so dumb. MS should just brick the systems.
I like how all the pirates think their righteous.
"I BOUGHT TAH CONSOLE WITH MONEYZ DAMMIT I CAN STEAAL GAMEZ FU m$!"
I'm starting to wonder if this will affect their numbers next month. Is it possible that potential customers will now opt for a cheaper used alternative if they don't plan on playing online? It's a pretty bad outcome if it does happen more often, no income for the hardware company and no sales for the software company.octopusman said:Jesus these craiglist XBOX360s are dirt cheap for people who don't use live, $100? you've got to be kidding me.
Yup.USC-fan said:so if i buy a banned console, will i still be able to do everything but play online? I been looking for a hdmi elite and i dont have xbox live anyway.
USC-fan said:so if i buy a banned console, will i still be able to do everything but play online? I been looking for a hdmi elite and i dont have xbox live anyway. Like can i still get fw update and things like that?
You'll have to go manual mode for FW updates, I think... You won't be able to install games to your HDD... And if you ever do decide you want to get on Live, your profile, saved games, etc. will not transfer over to a new, unbanned Xbox.USC-fan said:so if i buy a banned console, will i still be able to do everything but play online? I been looking for a hdmi elite and i dont have xbox live anyway. Like can i still get fw update and things like that?