Xbox One Ships Early, Microsoft Bans It

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Roander:

sethisjimmy:

I get that Target shares some blame in it, but that doesn't absolve this guy of all responsibility. It's like if someone left the keys in their car and you just drove off with it, then posted selfies all over facebook. You wouldn't just get off scot-free.

This is NOTHING like that. He paid for and legally owns the console. This would be like if he bought a car and the dealer delivered it to him a couple weeks early so he took a few pictures and drove it around the block, then had his license taken away for 'violating the terms of service'.

I'd like to know which part of the terms he violated, actually. It seems strange that they'd have a clause in there about using the console before the launch date. Especially since in order to read and agree to the terms you would have to use the console.

That part in bold is actually a matter of debater as far as companies and a large chunk of users see it. he doesn't own a thing, just purchase the limited use rights of the hardware which are subject to change according to the actual owner, Microsoft. This all ties back into why digital distribution is a bad idea in most cases, but that would be getting off track.

Point is that unlike the consoles of yesteryear these things are numbered and tracked, and all the user is doing is leasing it, ownership is apparently not the case anymore. My guess is there is a TOS somewhere that doesn't require a console's usage to read, maybe in a manual, insert, or on their website. More often than not a large corporation like Microsoft and it's legal team can use that against anyone at any time as they see fit. I read there are law protecting people from that in the UK, but in America all rights are reserved by the company and not the purchaser.

Not saying it's fair, I don't think it is, but a lot of people do, and support these kinds of actions, including the users restricted by such policy.

rhizhim:
the images on the article are screwed up.

that leaves a sour taste in every customers mouth.
you just have a 500$ console that can magically be turned into a brick at any time for stupid reasons.
i think its better to keep the money and use it for a short hookers, blackjack and drugs weekend instead.

^^This, a thousand times this^^

I'm glad that I was not the only one who took away from this article the fact that someone can brick these things. Looks like not all of the worst DRM was advertized. Is it even legal to do this?

lacktheknack:

It has nothing to do with precedents and everything to do with "Using A Product From A Notoriously Ban-Happy Company Two Weeks Before Grand Release".

And we could reasonably expect them to ban you for early use because of all the examples where they have banned legit copies of games or hardware for it.

Such as...Ummm....You'll have to help me out here.

Their "ban-happy" status is yet to apply to this sort of thing. You're saying people are dumb for not assuming something to the contrary of all prior indication.

jklinders:

I'm glad that I was not the only one who took away from this article the fact that someone can brick these things.

something we've known since launch.

If people are still buying it, it's their own damn fault.

This isn't something Microsoft has backdoored.

Icehearted:

Roander:

sethisjimmy:

I get that Target shares some blame in it, but that doesn't absolve this guy of all responsibility. It's like if someone left the keys in their car and you just drove off with it, then posted selfies all over facebook. You wouldn't just get off scot-free.

This is NOTHING like that. He paid for and legally owns the console. This would be like if he bought a car and the dealer delivered it to him a couple weeks early so he took a few pictures and drove it around the block, then had his license taken away for 'violating the terms of service'.

I'd like to know which part of the terms he violated, actually. It seems strange that they'd have a clause in there about using the console before the launch date. Especially since in order to read and agree to the terms you would have to use the console.

That part in bold is actually a matter of debater as far as companies and a large chunk of users see it. he doesn't own a thing, just purchase the limited use rights of the hardware which are subject to change according to the actual owner, Microsoft. This all ties back into why digital distribution is a bad idea in most cases, but that would be getting off track.

Point is that unlike the consoles of yesteryear these things are numbered and tracked, and all the user is doing is leasing it, ownership is apparently not the case anymore. My guess is there is a TOS somewhere that doesn't require a console's usage to read, maybe in a manual, insert, or on their website. More often than not a large corporation like Microsoft and it's legal team can use that against anyone at any time as they see fit. I read there are law protecting people from that in the UK, but in America all rights are reserved by the company and not the purchaser.

Not saying it's fair, I don't think it is, but a lot of people do, and support these kinds of actions, including the users restricted by such policy.

Unless there's some new leasing contract you have to sign to get an xbox one, he is not leasing the hardware, he owns it. He can chuck it off a cliff if he wants to. If I were to lease a car and drive it off a cliff I'd suddenly owe the leasing company a great deal of money. The leasing simile only gets applied to software because it's recognized that the content is what's important rather than the media it's stored on and copyright holders need a way to protect that content. It falls apart when you try to apply it to hardware. You could say the use of Microsoft's network is leased, but I still don't think that justifies comparing this guy's actions to stealing a car.

Concerning terms of service enclosed with the product, there's some indication that they might be able to point to something in the box and say he agreed to it, but it's not cut and dried. The following is from the wiki page on 'shrink wrap contracts':
"In general, a user is not legally obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc. At the very least, the fair trade laws of most U.S. states would grant a buyer the right to cancel the purchase of a product where an enclosed contract provides terms of which purchaser can not be aware at the time the product is purchased."

I'm aware that a lot of people, including the affected consumers accept shrink wrap contracts as the way things are and that bothers me. If everyone just assumes they're binding then they effectively will be.

Even if they have such a contract and it's enforceable I find it bizarre that they would include a clause about using the console before a specific release date.

josemlopes:
All Microsoft did was temporarly disable Xbox Live connection until the launch day, from Major Nelson's blog:
"these consoles units will be restricted from connecting to Xbox Live until closer to our launch date."

except that he did got permaban and his youtube account ruined and they only started solving it when it caused an uproar in community.

lacktheknack:

I'm stunned that people are currently trying to make out that Microsoft is still evil and not laughing their guts out at the genius who freaking did an unboxing video of an unreleased product that he then connected to the internet.

Im stunned there are still people who do not know that without connecting it to the internet all you did was bought an expensive brick.

Infernal Lawyer:

Strazdas:

Infernal Lawyer:

Except he's NOT getting permabanned. He just got picked up by an automatic system, and MS said they're going to fix it. So piss off with your "they think they can just swing the banhammar when they want" nonsense. They probably just had safeguards in place to stop such a thing from happening.

If you need to create a shitstorm in order to drive enough attention to get innocent person unbanned by a broken autmated system, then there is massive faults in the whole system and it does swing the banhammer whenever it wants, in fact, it seems to do this randomly. this is a PROBLEM.

Hrrm, that's right, I missed the whole part about him needing to go on twitter and whatnot. You have a point there, if the guy needed to 'create a shitstorm' to get unbanned for committing the crime of trying to use the console that he got earlier than expected, something is wrong.

Because now it is a crime to buy a product you have legitimately bought. Nice! Then again, we knew this already when people were sued for using their current gen consoles the way they wanted to isntead of the way SONY wnated them to. because apperently you no longer own the items you buy.
Of course it is wrong that they banned him. Of course it is wrong that Target shipped early. Neither of which is the guys fault. I dont know about you, but id rather punish the guilty party (Target and microsoft) than bystanders.

Icehearted:
My guess is there is a TOS somewhere that doesn't require a console's usage to read, maybe in a manual, insert, or on their website. More often than not a large corporation like Microsoft and it's legal team can use that against anyone at any time as they see fit. I read there are law protecting people from that in the UK, but in America all rights are reserved by the company and not the purchaser.

TOS is only legally binding if read and SIGNED before the purchase is made. All other occasions TOS is nothing but a piece of paper to rub your bad end with. Except in the crazy land of USA where you can write anything in TOS, at any point and it would automatically make it leglaly binding, becuase why not give companies unlimited legal power right?

Zachary Amaranth:

And we could reasonably expect them to ban you for early use because of all the examples where they have banned legit copies of games or hardware for it.

Such as...Ummm....You'll have to help me out here.

Their "ban-happy" status is yet to apply to this sort of thing. You're saying people are dumb for not assuming something to the contrary of all prior indication.

While i am on your side of the argument, Microsoft has been known to ban all early acessers, such as bricking your xbox for those who got early acess to HALO 3.

Roander:
The leasing simile only gets applied to software because it's recognized that the content is what's important rather than the media it's stored on and copyright holders need a way to protect that content. It falls apart when you try to apply it to hardware.

Except that they will brick your console for modifying hardware. In fact, they will not only brick it, but sue you and win the court case, because you are not legally allowed to modify hardware you own. (case in point - changing PS3 to accept all types of media instead of restricted by SONY).

Goddamnit Microsoft!!

Why must you be such dicks?!

What the hell is that kid gonna do, give you free publicity? Oh, the horror! The horror!!

Why the hell is a ban/permaban the first fucking thing that happens? How is this shit even legal?!

You are just digging your own grave here Microsoft.

I'm not sure what kind of desperate information control game Microsoft is playing at here, but it's a failing proposition simply by virtue of trying to fight it on the Internet.

Also, abusing the copyright notice on Youtube in this fashion? I'm pretty sure that's a dick move of the highest order, but then again I'm already of the opinion that the copyright policing function on Youtube itself needs policing.

Strazdas:

Icehearted:
My guess is there is a TOS somewhere that doesn't require a console's usage to read, maybe in a manual, insert, or on their website. More often than not a large corporation like Microsoft and it's legal team can use that against anyone at any time as they see fit. I read there are law protecting people from that in the UK, but in America all rights are reserved by the company and not the purchaser.

TOS is only legally binding if read and SIGNED before the purchase is made. All other occasions TOS is nothing but a piece of paper to rub your bad end with. Except in the crazy land of USA where you can write anything in TOS, at any point and it would automatically make it leglaly binding, becuase why not give companies unlimited legal power right?

This is essentially why Americans loathe large companies, among other reasons of course. The unrestricted capacity to bend the law to serve their purposes exclusively has been a large part of more than gaming, but most of entertainment as a whole. Remember when the RIAA wanted to ban all recording devices, radios that played aloud, etc? It was all about making sure that every person bought the right to use it under their terms. We used to say "I bought this record" or "I own that game" but ownership has become so cloudy in this country it's harder to say this anymore, and rather than saying these thing people have altered their vernacular to exchange own with "paid for".

I was genuinely disbelieving and amazed when I read about how the UK deals with these issues in favor of the consumer first. We may never see anything like that here, and why should we? Unlike Microsoft, Apple, Sony, or anyone else we don't have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for us.

Okay, that was a bit grim and dramatic, but sadly not exaggerated.

Saika Renegade:
I'm not sure what kind of desperate information control game Microsoft is playing at here, but it's a failing proposition simply by virtue of trying to fight it on the Internet.

Also, abusing the copyright notice on Youtube in this fashion? I'm pretty sure that's a dick move of the highest order, but then again I'm already of the opinion that the copyright policing function on Youtube itself needs policing.

The information control game they are playing here is most likely that some video game journalism organization purchased the rights from Microsoft for the right to be the one to break all the big news, like the first one to be allowed to do an unboxing, the first one to get information that everyone wants to know, etc. Basically, Microsoft is selling information about their console to news outlets. Microsoft is trying to protect these deals.

While I am not for or against this practice (I have yet to make an informed opinion) I am disappointed in their reaction to this incident. They should have anticipated this possibility and had a plan in place to deal with it. Instead they ended up making a knee jerk reaction that makes them look like paranoid, information hording assholes.

This isn't really Microsoft being a dick. When they retract the ban and if they retract the youtube complaint there really is no harm done. This is Microsoft being idiotic, resulting in another PR screw up that makes them look like dicks.

Of course, this is just the best case scenario. It is possible Microsoft are simply information hording assholes. So idiots, jerks or both. Take your pick.

DrOswald:
The information control game they are playing here is most likely that some video game journalism organization purchased the rights from Microsoft for the right to be the one to break all the big news, like the first one to be allowed to do an unboxing, the first one to get information that everyone wants to know, etc. Basically, Microsoft is selling information about their console to news outlets. Microsoft is trying to protect these deals.

While I am not for or against this practice (I have yet to make an informed opinion) I am disappointed in their reaction to this incident. They should have anticipated this possibility and had a plan in place to deal with it. Instead they ended up making a knee jerk reaction that makes them look like paranoid, information hording assholes.

This isn't really Microsoft being a dick. When they retract the ban and if they retract the youtube complaint there really is no harm done. This is Microsoft being idiotic, resulting in another PR screw up that makes them look like dicks.

Of course, this is just the best case scenario. It is possible Microsoft are simply information hording assholes. So idiots, jerks or both. Take your pick.

Oh, I don't doubt that they have some sort of exclusive 'first hard looks' deal with an information outlet somewhere; it'd be more surprising if they didn't. However, if that's the case, they didn't use the copyright ban tool to enforce copyright infringement but rather to protect their business deals, a blatant misuse of an already poorly implemented tool, and that's part of what has me assigning the 'dick move' label at this stage, in much the same spirit as those jerk devs who put out Day One and then decided to censor TotalBiscuit with the Youtube copyright infringement function when they didn't like his criticism of the game. Microsoft could have handled this in so many better ways that didn't make them look like jerks to their userbase.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here