Agoraphobic PS3 Owner Appeals Sony Lawsuit Loss
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I am glad SOME people actually understand what the First Amendment of the Constitution actually does. It does NOT mean "I get to say whatever I want wherever I want, and nobody can ever do anything about it!".SaintWaldo said:
Now, as for the case itself... well, I need only trot out that old legal truism, bespoke by famed lawyer (and also American President) Abraham Lincoln: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Some people just can't let shit go. I'm sure he's one of those guys who chews out the new grocery clerk for screwing up his change.
Honestly, this gets to the crux of a very important matter as ridiculous as it sounds.
I have been saying for years that I feel privatly owned communication channels which are increasingly becoming a nessecity in today's world need to be policed better. Not for people misbehaving, or for content, but to protect the freedom of speech rights of people using those forums. I understand the logic of ownership rights and such, and on a small scale I can see favoring the owners. However when dealing with things like the internet with millions of users and the potential for limitless, totally free information, the situation changes entirely. I have long felt that once the purpose of a forum is set, an owner should only be able to engage in censorship/banning/etc... for being off topic, and even then it should be limited. Conversations that extent from on-topic matters to off topic ones should also be protected.
The reason for this is simple: free speech is something that was guaranteed to prevent oppression. The abillity to regulate speech is something that was intented to be put outside of the power of a goverment of duly elected representitives, and despite our self destructive tendencies, something that people would have a hard time simply voting away themselves (a lot of current politics on things like video games largely revolve around the goverment trying to find a way to take away this right).
If it's beyond the power of a duly elected representitive to censor someone, then private citizens shouldn't have the right to do so either. To begin with this wasn't a big deal, especially when dealing with BBS systems and such. But today when you can have a company put up a forum to discuss their product, and then delete anything negative (and ban those complaining about it) to present only positive information that promotes their pdocut under the pretension of free speech... well... that's a problem.
It also gives people with information services virtually godlike power to truely ruin the lives of people who depend on their services.
This guy's case strikes me as a big hokey, but let's say for example that he's serious. He's not being cut off due to lack of payment or anything, but because he said something that someone apparently didn't like. In return his communications link to millions is cut on the say so of some minor bureaucrat who can claim anything he wants and doesn't have to really justify his action. Even if he does have to talk to a supervisor, it's not like the person being banned gets a trial or anything.
Connected to this you see similar issues with blogs, facebook, and other social networking services, where some nerd with a power trip can seriously affect people's lives.
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
See, I think that as things are now, electronic social networks, of ALL sorts should fall under the same limits that the goverment does as far as controlling information goes. Rather than looking to engage in moral censorship of video games and such, our informational authorities should instead be spending their time protecting our freedom of speech electronically even in face of international conflict. Basically the exact opposite of
what is happening now.
If a company like Sony wants to cut someone off, it should be in a similar vein to a utility company cutting someone off. It can be done, but appeals exist, and there are rules involved (for example you can't cut someone's heat in the middle of winter due to lack of payment and kill them indirectly).
I hate big goverment with a passion, but one thing I am somewhat left wing on (ie favoring the goverment IF it does things right, as opposed to private profiteers) is electronic communication. I think with the right attitude (acting to protect free speech as opposed to limiting it, and mission statements in the appropriate bureaus to this effect) I'd trust officials I had *SOME* say into getting into office to regulate things, rather than some slob of a low-end corperate bureaucrat when it comes to desicians about cutting people out of a million man social network or whatever. Heck, even with message boards (no offense to our mods here) the abillity to delete a message that could be seen by thousands of people potentially should not be something entrusted to some random guy who decided "hey, I wanna make a website". The website he makes effectively being bigger than him as soon as he puts it up (so to speak).
I have been saying for years that I feel privatly owned communication channels which are increasingly becoming a nessecity in today's world need to be policed better. Not for people misbehaving, or for content, but to protect the freedom of speech rights of people using those forums. I understand the logic of ownership rights and such, and on a small scale I can see favoring the owners. However when dealing with things like the internet with millions of users and the potential for limitless, totally free information, the situation changes entirely. I have long felt that once the purpose of a forum is set, an owner should only be able to engage in censorship/banning/etc... for being off topic, and even then it should be limited. Conversations that extent from on-topic matters to off topic ones should also be protected.
The reason for this is simple: free speech is something that was guaranteed to prevent oppression. The abillity to regulate speech is something that was intented to be put outside of the power of a goverment of duly elected representitives, and despite our self destructive tendencies, something that people would have a hard time simply voting away themselves (a lot of current politics on things like video games largely revolve around the goverment trying to find a way to take away this right).
If it's beyond the power of a duly elected representitive to censor someone, then private citizens shouldn't have the right to do so either. To begin with this wasn't a big deal, especially when dealing with BBS systems and such. But today when you can have a company put up a forum to discuss their product, and then delete anything negative (and ban those complaining about it) to present only positive information that promotes their pdocut under the pretension of free speech... well... that's a problem.
It also gives people with information services virtually godlike power to truely ruin the lives of people who depend on their services.
This guy's case strikes me as a big hokey, but let's say for example that he's serious. He's not being cut off due to lack of payment or anything, but because he said something that someone apparently didn't like. In return his communications link to millions is cut on the say so of some minor bureaucrat who can claim anything he wants and doesn't have to really justify his action. Even if he does have to talk to a supervisor, it's not like the person being banned gets a trial or anything.
Connected to this you see similar issues with blogs, facebook, and other social networking services, where some nerd with a power trip can seriously affect people's lives.
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
See, I think that as things are now, electronic social networks, of ALL sorts should fall under the same limits that the goverment does as far as controlling information goes. Rather than looking to engage in moral censorship of video games and such, our informational authorities should instead be spending their time protecting our freedom of speech electronically even in face of international conflict. Basically the exact opposite of
what is happening now.
If a company like Sony wants to cut someone off, it should be in a similar vein to a utility company cutting someone off. It can be done, but appeals exist, and there are rules involved (for example you can't cut someone's heat in the middle of winter due to lack of payment and kill them indirectly).
I hate big goverment with a passion, but one thing I am somewhat left wing on (ie favoring the goverment IF it does things right, as opposed to private profiteers) is electronic communication. I think with the right attitude (acting to protect free speech as opposed to limiting it, and mission statements in the appropriate bureaus to this effect) I'd trust officials I had *SOME* say into getting into office to regulate things, rather than some slob of a low-end corperate bureaucrat when it comes to desicians about cutting people out of a million man social network or whatever. Heck, even with message boards (no offense to our mods here) the abillity to delete a message that could be seen by thousands of people potentially should not be something entrusted to some random guy who decided "hey, I wanna make a website". The website he makes effectively being bigger than him as soon as he puts it up (so to speak).
Sony is not owned by the US government, it is a privately owned Multinational corporation and as such you abide by their rules when using their products via the EULA or whatever the hell they make you say "I agree" to. The only thing Sony is subject to in the US is lawful conduct in regular business I suppose, but it's their program, their services, their rules. Just like my house, my rules.matrix3509 said:
Hmmm, well not really. My (probably badly written) rant above, look at this from an even simpler perspective:Dirty Apple said:
A console can cost you several hundred dollars, that alone makes it more than "someone messing up your change" at a grocery store. Then on top of this there are internet fees, wires to run it (depending on how your phone jacks are set up), and everything else. A console is a fairly big investment.
Right now being able to go online is one of the big selling points of a console, and things like the Playstation make a big deal about things like "Home". It's one of the things your buying when you lay out that money, and decide to attach it to your internet (meaning you've probably got at least 2 seperate ports for connections which can cost extra money depending on your ISP).
While it doesn't apply to PSN, with the 360 there is the additional matter of paying a seperate LIVE fee as well if you want all the interpersonal services.
The abillity of some dude on a power trip to decide "I will cut this guy off from the network permanantly, with no appeal" is absolutly ridiculous. He does that, and your at LEAST out a couple hundred dollars you spent on your internet capable console. Elected officials in our federal goverment don't have this kind of power (as "petty" as it is), some minimum wage Sony employee certainly shouldn't be able to hold that power.
What's more if you buy a new console and log back in, you can also lose hundreds of man hours work of work represented through achievements, purchused content, or whatever else. Chances are the more of this stuff you have, the more it probably meant to you.... and of course by logging back in your technically violating your "ban" whether it was just or not.
Truthfully, I sort of feel for the guy above (albeit I don't know what he was banned for specifically, and I guess that's part of the problem: Sony doesn't have to justify it to any outside parties... and they should).
Given his comments about The Joker, and mental problems (agrophobia) he's probably someone who is disabled or at least grappling with a lot of problems to begin with. Right now I know losing a console (would take a couple hundred dollars all at once to replace, which is rough for me) would annoy me greatly.
The problem is that the victims who need the legal system, are the ones who are least able to afford it. Plenty of lawyers who will take "EZ" trivial lawsuits for money, but a hard lawsuit that is going to be an uphill battle, no matter how just? Well your out of luck.
A man who represents himself may have a fool for a client, but honestly in these kinds of civil cases the only other alternative is to not be represented at all, either the case never being heard, or the other side getting to pound away without resistance (you can be "Tried" in many cases without being present if your a no-show... though that's not relevent to a situation like this). Besides, in true "Tarot" style, sometimes the Fool gets lucky, and if your desperate enough, what is what you go for.
Truthfully I'm less concerned about the legal department of company's like Sony, as much as how much money they effectively give to the state and such. See, a Judge is a public employee. If Sony has donated a lot of money to charity (directly or indirectly), helped with any kind of rennvations, or even just has some warehouses around that employ a bunch of people in the area, it means the goverment in the area is not likely to want to F@ck with them. Cost Sony a million bucks (or whatever) in retaliation they close a warehouse causing 500 people to lose their jobs, and then re-open one somewhere else in a district that will treat them better. THAT kind of thing is one of the reasons why big companies donate money to charity and help with civil projects... not just tax breaks. Help renovate the Waterfront (or whatever) publically, or behind the scenes.... and well... those judges and local politicians are on your side when you need them right or wrong.
So really, I'm hoping for a truely unexpected "flash Knockout" but I doubt this will end well. I think it's a bigger deal than most apparently do though (and have written TWO huge posts on the subject).
You'd make a good politician, you talk and talk and yet don't say a whole lot.Therumancer said:
[sup]Just a joke, don't hurt me...[/sup]
The guy has a YouTube account and has posted videos of him harassing other players in various video games, as well as an illegally recorded phone call with him abusing customer support (illegal as in, he had no permission to record it at all). If that's not enough to warrant being banned for a month (seriously, the ban wasn't even a permanent one, it was a month ban) then you're really sympathizing with him too much. For the life of me, I can't find it right now, but it should be somewhere in the previous thread about this. I'll find it if I can.
EDIT: Aha, here's the post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.126375?page=8#2681998] with the YouTube account.
That is a giant and very intimidating wall of text. What I said earlier may have been a bit flipantly casual, so I'll be more precise. He agreed to certain rules of conduct when he signed on to PSN. I refuse to believe they banned him without any prior warnings or notices. That being said, he felt the need to take his grievance to court, so be it. He lost. At this point in time, those in his life who may have been supporting him need to step in and tell him to let it go. This is a classic nuisance case and he needs to suck it up.Therumancer said:
That is a giant and very intimidating wall of text. What I said earlier may have been a bit flipantly casual, so I'll be more precise. He agreed to certain rules of conduct when he signed on to PSN. I refuse to believe they banned him without any prior warnings or notices. That being said, he felt the need to take his grievance to court, so be it. He lost. At this point in time, those in his life who may have been supporting him need to step in and tell him to let it go. This is a classic nuisance case and he needs to suck it up.[/quote]
-
I cut the wall so this wouldn't be too big.
Simply put I think the judge was wrong though, he dismissed it not because of any of the reasons mentioned by my other responder, or any other details. He dismissed it because he felt First Amendment Rights shouldn't apply. I disagree with that whole heartedly, the Judge's reasoning is inherantly flawed. Whether the guy wins or not, the case deserves to be heard and treated as a potential free speech violation. Should he lose under thos terms with the details reviewed by someone other than a corperate bureaucrat... then I'll agree it should be dropped.
As far as disclaimers go, I feel that if your being pigeonholed into something like that AFTER paying money for a product it should hold no weight. I also think some of the stuff put into these EULAs and such should be illegal... unless of course you have the right to use the product after saying 'No' which is not the case. For example you can't refuse the terms of the PSN agreement, negotiate, or anything else, just accept it, or refuse and then wind up with an unconnectable chunk of plastic and metal.
This of course goes into another whole issue, that exists outside of computers as well. That is the abillity to refuse someone service if they don't sign a whole bunch of waivers, many of which basically give you the right to screw and/or cheat them for all intents and purposes. Especially in cases where someone is providing a nessicary service, or one impossible to procure without such waivers.
The quintessential example of course being how some guy might be dying in the hospital, even with insurance no surgeon agrees to work on him unless he absolves the surgen of all responsibility for anything that goes wrong, under any circumstances. Such waivers have been overturned in court in many cases, and I feel it should be the sale thing with "User Agreements". There are some rights you should not be able to sign away even if you want to (no matter what a paper says), and some some responsibilities no waiver should ever absolve a person from.
I feel the right of free speech is so central, that no agreement over an internet connection should allow them to ban someone for saying something a petty bureaucrat (or even a bunch of them) does not like.
Truthfully, if the guy DID do a lot of stuff that was wrong (sending video messages, etc...) there are other laws to go after him with. In comparison banning him might be minor compared to those laws... however I still think he should not be banned from such a service without a trial and the abillity to appeal to a third party neither affiliated with the company nor himself.
-
I cut the wall so this wouldn't be too big.
Simply put I think the judge was wrong though, he dismissed it not because of any of the reasons mentioned by my other responder, or any other details. He dismissed it because he felt First Amendment Rights shouldn't apply. I disagree with that whole heartedly, the Judge's reasoning is inherantly flawed. Whether the guy wins or not, the case deserves to be heard and treated as a potential free speech violation. Should he lose under thos terms with the details reviewed by someone other than a corperate bureaucrat... then I'll agree it should be dropped.
As far as disclaimers go, I feel that if your being pigeonholed into something like that AFTER paying money for a product it should hold no weight. I also think some of the stuff put into these EULAs and such should be illegal... unless of course you have the right to use the product after saying 'No' which is not the case. For example you can't refuse the terms of the PSN agreement, negotiate, or anything else, just accept it, or refuse and then wind up with an unconnectable chunk of plastic and metal.
This of course goes into another whole issue, that exists outside of computers as well. That is the abillity to refuse someone service if they don't sign a whole bunch of waivers, many of which basically give you the right to screw and/or cheat them for all intents and purposes. Especially in cases where someone is providing a nessicary service, or one impossible to procure without such waivers.
The quintessential example of course being how some guy might be dying in the hospital, even with insurance no surgeon agrees to work on him unless he absolves the surgen of all responsibility for anything that goes wrong, under any circumstances. Such waivers have been overturned in court in many cases, and I feel it should be the sale thing with "User Agreements". There are some rights you should not be able to sign away even if you want to (no matter what a paper says), and some some responsibilities no waiver should ever absolve a person from.
I feel the right of free speech is so central, that no agreement over an internet connection should allow them to ban someone for saying something a petty bureaucrat (or even a bunch of them) does not like.
Truthfully, if the guy DID do a lot of stuff that was wrong (sending video messages, etc...) there are other laws to go after him with. In comparison banning him might be minor compared to those laws... however I still think he should not be banned from such a service without a trial and the abillity to appeal to a third party neither affiliated with the company nor himself.
(Sorry if this is a bit messy)
Well, there's one thing though. If you join PSN or Xbox Live, or any like online thing, your agreeing to there terms of service. The fine print nobody bothers to read or the little "Click here that you agree to the ToS" is where people can get you. ToS is there "Waivers". By clicking the little agree button, or next in a installation, etc etc, your agreeing to follow Sony's or whoever's rules to grant you service. So if Sony feels he broke there ToS, they have the right to ban him since he agreed to the ToS. Also means that they can ban him without knowledge because they got his permission to get service. That's a whole another debate if it's "Moraly Right to ban without warning". But eah. My opinion he's trying to be a attention seeking person, and get a quick buck. Honestly, if he has the right mindset to represent himself against Sony's lawyers, he's probably gonna loose.
Well, there's one thing though. If you join PSN or Xbox Live, or any like online thing, your agreeing to there terms of service. The fine print nobody bothers to read or the little "Click here that you agree to the ToS" is where people can get you. ToS is there "Waivers". By clicking the little agree button, or next in a installation, etc etc, your agreeing to follow Sony's or whoever's rules to grant you service. So if Sony feels he broke there ToS, they have the right to ban him since he agreed to the ToS. Also means that they can ban him without knowledge because they got his permission to get service. That's a whole another debate if it's "Moraly Right to ban without warning". But eah. My opinion he's trying to be a attention seeking person, and get a quick buck. Honestly, if he has the right mindset to represent himself against Sony's lawyers, he's probably gonna loose.
well i hate to say it but i just got of my ps3 and was just in agame with that jerk manhe really does get under your skin he came on saying that we need to take off the posts from our gaming clans website or he will have his lawyer dad call the sheriff on us and have the web site closed we told him that we gat all the info off the net and where tring to figure out why he was trying to take on sony he said it had his personel info like where he lived in san jose calif we said it just the the papers that where filed in court that we saw anline since trhe where posted on another web site he really needs to chill before the next judge makes him pay all the bills from the court fees to sonys lawyers fee which could cost some money and he has a new tag but you have to hear him to wonder why he got banned
ok so the guy has issues going outside and contacting other people and yet he's suing the company AND representing himself. this is going to end well
Sony lawyer : are you interacting with me?
dude : yes
Sony lawyer : ok so you have outside interaction, no more questions
Judge : case dismissed
Sony lawyer : are you interacting with me?
dude : yes
Sony lawyer : ok so you have outside interaction, no more questions
Judge : case dismissed
There are policies for using PSN and XBL! So...it's the user's responsibility to read (or don't read, Sony and Microsoft won't be hurt) the fine print lol...
Oh just a fun thought, what if PSN had not banned him, but done what Xbox Live's "Banhammer" sometimes does... temporarily suspension? Only about 999 years suspension but technically not a permanent ban! lol
Oh just a fun thought, what if PSN had not banned him, but done what Xbox Live's "Banhammer" sometimes does... temporarily suspension? Only about 999 years suspension but technically not a permanent ban! lol
OBJECTION!Sunfirecross said:Joker, why not just go as Edgeworth more badass in a suave way.Malygris said:
(I'm sorry... so so sorry.)
On a serious note...
Is THIS what the outside world gets to see of gamers?
Is THIS the best we have to offer to the cameras?
Is THIS what the outside world gets to see of gamers?
Is THIS the best we have to offer to the cameras?
The problem is that the internet has no geographical boundries. There is no universal law on freedom of speech. The FOS laws are different in American, the UK, Germany, China, Iran, I could go on. Who's laws will you enforce?Therumancer said:
I don't believe this guy is agoraphobic, I think he's a douche who's attention seeking, I guess daddy never bought him a pony and now he's bitter. He was the kid in class who ate crayons and was constantly seeing the school nurse with objects stuck in his nose.
I hope the courts slam him.