surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Lets be sure to point out the difference between no lawsuits AT ALL and no class-action lawsuits. Very different things.
Lets also remind everyone that Steam has this exact same "no lawsuits AT ALL" provision.
Lets also remind everyone that Steam has this exact same "no lawsuits AT ALL" provision.
That's a pretty arbitrary assessment of what arbitration is. Have you been a party to many arbitrations?
Well lets be fair, we live in a very lawsuit happy world and this is probably in effect to just cover them from silly cash grab lawsuits. Any lawsuit that has any sort of legitimate claim will probably end up getting this 'rule' voided anyway.
And I agree, this rule shouldn't be legal.
And I agree, this rule shouldn't be legal.
WTF? I hope they don't start removing features and functions like Sony does now.
Sony dropped their "you no can sue us!" bomb just before the game sharing feature was removed from the PS3.
Sony dropped their "you no can sue us!" bomb just before the game sharing feature was removed from the PS3.
I read that last sentence as "...Microsoft kicking you right in the balls."
Somehow, it makes just as much sense.
Somehow, it makes just as much sense.
don't compare Sony to MS, jim - MS themselves admitted to existence of RRoD, extended warranty etc. if i remember correctly. it's Sony that gave their customers middle finger first neglecting existence of YLoD dumping responsibility on their customers, neglecting existence of firmware problems that was bricking ps3 and controllers. then they started selling warranty on PSN for 50$/year just to make all of the ps3 owners sign up new terms few months later that not only made impossible to exact warranty due to YLoD, firmware bricking your consoles and damages due to stolen identity and credit card numbers. let's not even talk about their customer service - they tried to extort my friend when he send his ps3 that YLoD'ed because it was supposedly all covered in dust despite the fact that warranty stated clear he bought it less than 3 weeks earlier.
Tristrix:
Point taken on the first.
As for the second point, when did Steam throw that in? I missed that one. Because it is bullshit there as well and certainly doesn't make it okay.
Point taken on the first.
As for the second point, when did Steam throw that in? I missed that one. Because it is bullshit there as well and certainly doesn't make it okay.
10. EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
As for when that was added, I don't know, but I know it was there when we were discussing Sony. I only point it out for perspective, so we can understand that this isn't exclusive to consoles, or exclusive to one particular brand. This kind of thing is absolutely ubiquitous.
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
As for when that was added, I don't know, but I know it was there when we were discussing Sony. I only point it out for perspective, so we can understand that this isn't exclusive to consoles, or exclusive to one particular brand. This kind of thing is absolutely ubiquitous.
@Tristix
Not that I'm surprised that you're defending this, but you do realize the legal jargon from Steam that you posted is not the same thing as what is covered in the Microsoft agreement at all?
Read:
IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU AND MICROSOFT AGREE THAT IF YOU AND MICROSOFT DO NOT RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY INFORMAL NEGOTIATION UNDER SECTION 18.1.2 ABOVE, ANY EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY BY BINDING ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURES IN SECTION 18.1.7 BELOW. YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BY AGREEING TO BINDING ARBITRATION, YOU ARE GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE (OR PARTICIPATE IN AS A PARTY OR CLASS MEMBER) ALL DISPUTES IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY. INSTEAD, YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT ALL DISPUTES WILL BE RESOLVED BEFORE A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR, WHOSE AWARD (DECISION) WILL BE BINDING AND FINAL, EXCEPT FOR A LIMITED RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. ANY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES MAY ENFORCE THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD.
THE ONLY DISPUTES NOT COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT IN SECTION 18.1 TO NEGOTIATE INFORMALLY AND ARBITRATE ARE DISPUTES ENFORCING, PROTECTING, OR CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF ANY OF YOUR OR MICROSOFT'S (OR ANY OF YOUR OR MICROSOFT'S LICENSORS') INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Not that I'm surprised that you're defending this, but you do realize the legal jargon from Steam that you posted is not the same thing as what is covered in the Microsoft agreement at all?
Read:
IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU AND MICROSOFT AGREE THAT IF YOU AND MICROSOFT DO NOT RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY INFORMAL NEGOTIATION UNDER SECTION 18.1.2 ABOVE, ANY EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY BY BINDING ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURES IN SECTION 18.1.7 BELOW. YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BY AGREEING TO BINDING ARBITRATION, YOU ARE GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE (OR PARTICIPATE IN AS A PARTY OR CLASS MEMBER) ALL DISPUTES IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY. INSTEAD, YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT ALL DISPUTES WILL BE RESOLVED BEFORE A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR, WHOSE AWARD (DECISION) WILL BE BINDING AND FINAL, EXCEPT FOR A LIMITED RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. ANY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES MAY ENFORCE THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD.
THE ONLY DISPUTES NOT COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT IN SECTION 18.1 TO NEGOTIATE INFORMALLY AND ARBITRATE ARE DISPUTES ENFORCING, PROTECTING, OR CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF ANY OF YOUR OR MICROSOFT'S (OR ANY OF YOUR OR MICROSOFT'S LICENSORS') INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Oh, it's you.
A) I'm not defending, as you'd well know if you bothered reading a word I said.
B) It's the same thing. Please educate yourself on what "sole and exclusive remedy" means.
C) Done with you now.
A) I'm not defending, as you'd well know if you bothered reading a word I said.
B) It's the same thing. Please educate yourself on what "sole and exclusive remedy" means.
C) Done with you now.
The official wording of the terms in the original Kotaku article just makes it sound like Microsoft wants to resolve individual complaints/lawsuits, instead of having the entire 360 userbase latching onto the lawsuit, which seems like a GOOD thing to me.
"This kind of thing is absolutely ubiquitous."
That's the scary part.
I'm reading through the MS agreement and I don't see a way to opt out like with Sony. Section 18.1.11 gives you the option to reject further changes to the contract but this current one still stands. Bummer.
That's the scary part.
I'm reading through the MS agreement and I don't see a way to opt out like with Sony. Section 18.1.11 gives you the option to reject further changes to the contract but this current one still stands. Bummer.
Tristrix: Interesting. Of course, that doesn't really make me feel better about it. It just makes it worse.
Not quite as bad as some of the people in here who are gleefully proud of the fact that they like these companies fucking them, though.
Not quite as bad as some of the people in here who are gleefully proud of the fact that they like these companies fucking them, though.
@kidplus
Well yeah, it IS scary, and it certainly DOES suck in every way in which something can conceivably suck. Point is, if you want to use any service, purchase anything, use any bank, any credit card, etc etc... you have to agree to this kind of thing on a daily basis. There's certainly an argument to be made that this is the bed we (and by that I mean 'Americans') made with our litigious society, but that doesn't make it ok, just somewhat understandable I suppose.
I, personally, don't have any fight left in me for this kind of thing. I can, on an intellectual level, realize that it blows, but I just can't work up a good froth of rage about it anymore. Maybe that's apathy or complacency, but it's also the price of doing any kind of business whatsoever in this country so... meh. It is what it is.
Well yeah, it IS scary, and it certainly DOES suck in every way in which something can conceivably suck. Point is, if you want to use any service, purchase anything, use any bank, any credit card, etc etc... you have to agree to this kind of thing on a daily basis. There's certainly an argument to be made that this is the bed we (and by that I mean 'Americans') made with our litigious society, but that doesn't make it ok, just somewhat understandable I suppose.
I, personally, don't have any fight left in me for this kind of thing. I can, on an intellectual level, realize that it blows, but I just can't work up a good froth of rage about it anymore. Maybe that's apathy or complacency, but it's also the price of doing any kind of business whatsoever in this country so... meh. It is what it is.
@everyone defending this. a individual lawsuit against a company like m$ is almost never going to happen mainly because the money you will get if you win the lawsuit is almost always a lot lower than the costs of the lawsuit itself thus starting a lawsuit in those cases it pointless. a class action lawsuit however is about a lot more people, while the amount of damages to a single person are quite low its the sum of it all that makes it worth the effort to start a suit. taking this away would practically mean m$ could do whatever they want as people wont sue them because they know its only gonna cost them even if they know they are in the right. in other words the right to start a class action suit should not be taken away
Yes, its me.
A. I read your posts. Parroting "well, everyone else does it too!" is giving a free pass to Microsoft and friends. Don't pretend there isn't an implied intent in that statement.
B. No, it is not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to educate yourself. "Sole and exclusive remedy" refers to rights to which the customer is entitled for grievances without legal action. It does not prevent a consumer from pressing charges or attempt to make any agreement preventing it.
The closest part of the Steam agreement to the MS situation would actually be the following portion, but even then it is only referring to breaches of the subscriber agreement (i.e., you cannot sue valve if you end up vac banned for cheating and expect to recieve compensation):
11. INDEMNIFICATION
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or in connection with breach of this Agreement, use of Steam or any Subscription or any related content, or any User Generated Information, including, but not limited to, the creation, distribution, promotion and use of any Mods, by you or any person(s) using your Account. Valve reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. In that event, you shall have no further obligation to provide indemnification to Valve in that matter. This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.
A. I read your posts. Parroting "well, everyone else does it too!" is giving a free pass to Microsoft and friends. Don't pretend there isn't an implied intent in that statement.
B. No, it is not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to educate yourself. "Sole and exclusive remedy" refers to rights to which the customer is entitled for grievances without legal action. It does not prevent a consumer from pressing charges or attempt to make any agreement preventing it.
The closest part of the Steam agreement to the MS situation would actually be the following portion, but even then it is only referring to breaches of the subscriber agreement (i.e., you cannot sue valve if you end up vac banned for cheating and expect to recieve compensation):
11. INDEMNIFICATION
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or in connection with breach of this Agreement, use of Steam or any Subscription or any related content, or any User Generated Information, including, but not limited to, the creation, distribution, promotion and use of any Mods, by you or any person(s) using your Account. Valve reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. In that event, you shall have no further obligation to provide indemnification to Valve in that matter. This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.
You can't sign away your right to sue. This is probably just to scare off the half-hearted people.
In any case, I don't see anything good about this new dashboard. Between their confusing (possibly illegal) customer agreements and the downright shoddy interface (looks good, but is an inconvenient mess), I'd say it's a losing situation all around.
In any case, I don't see anything good about this new dashboard. Between their confusing (possibly illegal) customer agreements and the downright shoddy interface (looks good, but is an inconvenient mess), I'd say it's a losing situation all around.
"almost every company that provides a service uses this now."
Please tell me how this defends it.
It doesn't defend it, but it does aid in rendering it moot. Just because there's a ton of boilerplate in a contract doesn't necessarily mean that the courts will uphold some or even all of that contract. If "every company that provides a service" is using this, and there hasn't been a significant drop in the number of lawsuits, I would say that this clause isn't being taken very seriously by the courts.
Please tell me how this defends it.
It doesn't defend it, but it does aid in rendering it moot. Just because there's a ton of boilerplate in a contract doesn't necessarily mean that the courts will uphold some or even all of that contract. If "every company that provides a service" is using this, and there hasn't been a significant drop in the number of lawsuits, I would say that this clause isn't being taken very seriously by the courts.
The fact that the courts at large are letting companies willfully destroy any chance of a class action lawsuit makes for a dark and embarrassing moment in american history.
@qlum
Fair point. However, and I made this point before when we discussed the Sony thing, but I very seriously question the benefit of class action lawsuits, because the benefit to the class member is just plain embarrassing, whereas the lawyers involved stand to make enormous sums of money.
I mean, I realize the counterargument there is that the defendant ends up losing a pretty large sum as some kind of punishment for whatever wrongdoing the class action suit is about, but as someone who'd found themselves a class member before, I just can't bring myself to give a shit when all I got out of it was like 10 bucks from classmates.com. Just... why bother, ya know? Meh. I am Jack's complete lack of enthusiasm today, apparently.
Fair point. However, and I made this point before when we discussed the Sony thing, but I very seriously question the benefit of class action lawsuits, because the benefit to the class member is just plain embarrassing, whereas the lawyers involved stand to make enormous sums of money.
I mean, I realize the counterargument there is that the defendant ends up losing a pretty large sum as some kind of punishment for whatever wrongdoing the class action suit is about, but as someone who'd found themselves a class member before, I just can't bring myself to give a shit when all I got out of it was like 10 bucks from classmates.com. Just... why bother, ya know? Meh. I am Jack's complete lack of enthusiasm today, apparently.
Maybe MS and the others that have done this are starting to realize that they are untouchable and just want to take some extra measures to make themselves bulletproof.
Really? Kotaku?
Come on Jim....
Anyway, I'm europe so it wont count for me, but the fact that this exists is disgraceful to fair corporatism.
Come on Jim....
Anyway, I'm europe so it wont count for me, but the fact that this exists is disgraceful to fair corporatism.
And to the people claiming this won't hold in court, it already has. Surprisingly, the gaming companies have just been much slower to jump on this bandwagon than the rest of america's corporatocracy.
FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Goddamn it, really wish people would tear Microsoft apart for all the shit that the 360 has been able to get away with this generation, paid basic multiplayer, ads even though you're paying through the ass for the privilage to own the hardware and the gold subscription again... I hate the world
Goddamn it, really wish people would tear Microsoft apart for all the shit that the 360 has been able to get away with this generation, paid basic multiplayer, ads even though you're paying through the ass for the privilage to own the hardware and the gold subscription again... I hate the world
@Tristrix
Yep. This sort of thing is everywhere and makes me wonder what good civil courts will be in 10 years. I don't see it changing until we get to a point when you're not allowed to sue anybody.
Yep. This sort of thing is everywhere and makes me wonder what good civil courts will be in 10 years. I don't see it changing until we get to a point when you're not allowed to sue anybody.
@dtomek
"corporatocracy"
I had to google that one to make sure it was actually a word. I'm extremely jealous of everyone's vocabulary around here.
"corporatocracy"
I had to google that one to make sure it was actually a word. I'm extremely jealous of everyone's vocabulary around here.
Really this is sleazy but at the end of the end what will any of us do about it? Will we bitch and moan and claim fake "boycotts" of Microsoft products or will we shrug our shoulders in a few days and go back to playing Gears of War or Halo on our systems. There will probably be a lucky few in some states where this rule is deemed illegal but for the rest there is really only one option if it bothers you: Stop using the Xbox and any subsequent hardware that features this rule forever. Companies are able to impose these rules because we allow them to and really it begins and ends at that.
I had a sneaky suspicion that Microsoft had included something along these lines, considering that generally when you update the dashboard you don't have to agree to any TOS (at least as far as I can recall). I'm confused, though; if a whole bunch of people were to sue Microsoft individually all concerning the same issue, would that not raise a red flag to courts that essentially the cases were class-action in nature?
SephirothX wrote, "Any lawsuit that has any sort of legitimate claim will probably end up getting this 'rule' voided anyway."
I see this sort of comment any time I read a story about this sleazy "no lawsuits" provision, and it drives me crazy. ATTENTION NON-LAWYERS: THIS IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. It's possible that provisions like this will be voided, but it won't have anything to do with the plaintiff having a "legitimate claim." If the provision is upheld, it will apply to ALL claimants. Why do you think Microsoft (and other companies) include provisions like this in their TOS? It's not to stop illegitimate claims, since those claims will be dismissed anyway. It's to stop otherwise legitimate claims from succeeding.
I see this sort of comment any time I read a story about this sleazy "no lawsuits" provision, and it drives me crazy. ATTENTION NON-LAWYERS: THIS IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. It's possible that provisions like this will be voided, but it won't have anything to do with the plaintiff having a "legitimate claim." If the provision is upheld, it will apply to ALL claimants. Why do you think Microsoft (and other companies) include provisions like this in their TOS? It's not to stop illegitimate claims, since those claims will be dismissed anyway. It's to stop otherwise legitimate claims from succeeding.
follow
