Microsoft and the Xbox

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'm so sorry that I can share a limited amount of information, I'm sure you'd either like me to shut up and stand in line with the other corperate shills instead, or alternatively you'd like me to violate information given to me in confidence for your convenience. Please let me know which so I can catagorise you in your correct status in trolldom.

Don't give any of your confidential evidence away. Just show a single shred of evidence that backs up your claims of "mass bannings of innocent people by MS" that isn't confidential. Perhaps a non-confidential media report of it supposedly happening even. Maybe a non-confidential claim on any non-confidential website with verifiable data. Uh, anything at all that isn't confidential and requires one to know the secret handshake in order to access.

Surely if there was any evidence at all some of it would have leaked out somewhere?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

"Please cite where the T&C's you list have been ruled "automatically unfair"."

Since you're too lazy to google: here and here. Last time I linkbot for you, incidentally.

Sorry, I asked you to link to evidence showing those specific T&C's you posted had been ruled unfair. I did not ask for a general law about what constitutes "automatically unfair T&C's".

You opinion is that those T&C's you listed are "automatically unfair". Sorry to tell you this but I do know enough about UK law to know that your opinion does not constitute a court ruling.

Btw, I've tried to find any evidence of a court ruling showing MS's T&C's to be "automatically unfair" and I can't find any.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

"please show where a Civil action that rules certain T&C's are invalid will automatically result in MS being ordered to allow all Xbox owners free access to Xbox live without any obligation to abide by the remaining T&C's."

This is your contention, and has nothing to do with anything I've posted, since it has no relationship with the UK contract law. Bearing that in mind... why do you believe this to be the case? What leads you to the conclusion? Cite the laws.

No, I'm contending exactly the opposite. I'm contending that even if certain T&C's are ruled automatically unfair that would not automatically bestow the right of all Xbox owners to access Xbox live.

You have repeatedly stated that all Xbox owners have the right to access Xbox live. Firstly it was because of false advertising. Then it was because the T&C's might be automatically unfair.

So I'm wondering what in the law makes you believe that all Xbox owners have the right to access Xbox live even if some of the T&C's are eventually ruled to be automatically unfair.

I wont hold my breath on a straight answer though because we both know there isn't anything. Unless of course there is some secret and private law society I'm not privy to!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And no, it's not in the interest of ATVI-B or EA to piss off one of their major current dependencies until they can shift enough risk elsewhere. If you look at their current annouced games and business activity, they *are* moving work away from the 360.

The fact they are moving work away from the 360 is not proof they believe MS are "screwing over the entire games industry". It very likely is for a variety of reasons.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'm so sorry that I can share a limited amount of information, which I could of chosen not to and I won't bother in future since you hate it so much. Honestly you're acting worse than Ahi in a TeX thread.

Why the quick edit? Thought your original statement(quoted in my previous post) made you look a little too silly?

Btw, you haven't actually shared any information at all. At this stage you have merely woven a fairy tale. And yes, in future I see to no reason for you to put forward the idea that you are privy to some sort of secret society information that you wont share with anyone and that proves everyone but you is wrong.

It doesn't really add anything at all to the debate. Except to make you look a little childish. Of course it is your prerogative to do so if you wish.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

I edited some of the more inflamatory material, because I'm trying not to sink to your level.

No, it's your contention and now I'm going to point to it and grin. Because I never contended anything of the sort, so you only place it could come from is you. Now, you can explain where you came up with it from in UK law.


And you are still persisting in refusing at all costs to admit how UK contract law works. It's based on plain language and simplicity - the unfair terms are there, and anything which fits them and the easily-readable guidence you can do something about, if you so wish. Simply because nobody has not yet brought the specific case does not make the terms fair! And the advertising is part of it, as it allways has been, creating direct consumer expectations does indeed generate implicit rights.

And of course I haven't provided specific links to the laws. No. You keep on believing that.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I edited some of the more inflamatory material, because I'm trying not to sink to your level.

Or was it because you realised your post made it abundantly clear to all that the basis of your argument is...

"Look at me! Look at me!! I have secret and confidential evidence that I'm not going to share with anyone that proves I'm right and you all are wrong!!! Trust me, I really do!"

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, it's your contention and now I'm going to point to it and grin. Because I never contended anything of the sort, so you only place it could come from is you. Now, you can explain where you came up with it from in UK law.

Hmmm, lets see.........

Post #95, page 7

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It seems many here are getting the two confused. Believing that by purchasing an Xbox one is bestowed with some legal right to access the Xbox live service. This is not the case. It is akin to saying "I have the right to access Xbox live and shouldn't have to pay the access fee because I own an Xbox". Of course you don't. You only have the right to access Xbox live if you abide by all the terms of service of the agreement, including paying the access fee and accessing it with an Xbox that has not been modded.

Clearly I am contending that purchase of an Xbox does not bestow the right to access Xbox live upon the purchaser.

To which DawnFalcon replies in post #99, page 7

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

pkffw - Yes, you do. The right is established by Microsoft's advertising. Lumping them together in UK advertising was...unsmart.

And clearly you are contending that purchase of an Xbox bestows the right to access Xbox live upon the purchaser.

Pretty clear who is claiming what but just to be sure.......
Post #103, page 7

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And if Xbox Live and the 360 are advertised as being part of the same service, in the same advert, as the UK adverts suggest? Yes, that creates an expectation of service. This is a mistake on Microsoft UK's part with the current advert run.

Post #111, page 8

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'm also not going to argue UK advertising law with you either, two law students agree with me that there's a clear expectation issue regarding the adverts. And if there is an expectation, then that does indeed tie Microsoft's hands

Then in post #133, page 9 I again make my point clear....

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Firstly, my original statement was that regardless of the advertising, purchase of the Xbox does not bestow any right to access the Xbox live service. You claimed this was not so.

To which you reply in post #136, page 10

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Microsoft have, by their UK adverts, established a link. This is...their own choice, and they have to take the consequences for that.

Which certainly seems to imply if not outright say that you believe there is some sort of right bestowed on all purchasers of an Xbox to access the Xbox live service.

Should I go on or is it abundantly clear now who is claiming what with regards to the right to access Xbox live?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And you are still persisting in refusing at all costs to admit how UK contract law works. It's based on plain language and simplicity - the unfair terms are there, and anything which fits them and the easily-readable guidence you can do something about, if you so wish. Simply because nobody has not yet brought the specific case does not make the terms fair! And the advertising is part of it, as it allways has been, creating direct consumer expectations does indeed generate implicit rights.

Of course you can do something about it, I never said you couldn't.

Just as MS can do something about whatever you do. It generally ends up being referred to as a court case. In such events it is debated in court as to whether the T&C's are in fact "automatically unfair". Sorry to tell you, those T&C's are not by default considered "automatically unfair" just because someone claims they are.

Now, if those T&C's are ruled to be automatically unfair by the court those specific T&C's will be removed. The court does not simply rule the entire contract to be thrown out.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And of course I haven't provided specific links to the laws. No. You keep on believing that.

You have provided specific links to the laws. You did that because you knew that is not what I was asking you to provide. What I asked you to provide was links to any rulings that had declared MS's T&C's to be automatically unfair. Since you can't do that, you choose to link to the laws that may be used to bring a case against MS in the hopes that with this misdirection you will seem to be answering my point without having done so.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

No, it wasn't. You're simply a troll assigning the worst possible values to anyone's actions. It won't be a surprise to anyone reasonable that sometimes the sources people have can't be disclosed.

You've also managed to spin yourself into a corner. Those terms are allways unfair. The only defence is that they can try and argue that they're not actually the same as the unfair terms, if the terms are indeed those in that list then they are unfair - period. And note that it dosn't mean other terms cannot be (and are often are) ruled unfair, but there are possible arguments against them being unfair. More, the contract would need to be revised based on both the advertising (which has created a "reasonable expectation", in law) and the T&C's. One does not exclude the other from being an issue.

And your persistant insistance that something is legal simply because there is no court ruling against it is frankly sad, especially in a civil legal system not set up to proactively hunt violations.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, it wasn't. You're simply a troll assigning the worst possible values to anyone's actions. It won't be a surprise to anyone reasonable that sometimes the sources people have can't be disclosed.

It wont also be a surprise to anyone reasonable if everyone takes the claimed "evidence" with a grain of salt unless and until the person claiming the evidence backs it up.

Also, any reasonable person would simply not mention any supposed evidence they have if they are unwilling or unable to reveal the source.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You've also managed to spin yourself into a corner. Those terms are allways unfair. The only defence is that they can try and argue that they're not actually the same as the unfair terms, if the terms are indeed those in that list then they are unfair - period. And note that it dosn't mean other terms cannot be (and are often are) ruled unfair, but there are possible arguments against them being unfair. More, the contract would need to be revised based on both the advertising (which has created a "reasonable expectation", in law) and the T&C's. One does not exclude the other from being an issue.

"The only defence is........"

Exactly!

Just as simply because one is charged with murder does not mean one is guilty of murder. A dead body does not automatically mean a murder has occurred. The fact one person kills another does not mean a murder has occurred. It requires that it be argued out in court where all the evidence is considered and the defence is considered and a decision is made.

They don't come knocking at your door and say "DawnFalcon, is this murder or not?" and go with that.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And your persistant insistance that something is legal simply because there is no court ruling against it is frankly sad, especially in a civil legal system not set up to proactively hunt violations.

And you claim to understand the law!

Here's how it works.....

An act is assumed to be legal until it is proven to be illegal. Not, it is assumed to be illegal until proven legal. The burden of proof, even in civil law, is upon the complainant. And without a complainant no case will even be made.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

What's more amusing than that joke is the way you constantly allude to the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a docile sheep....

... you got me!

[DawnFalcon]

Oh sure PJFFW, I could just lie instead of using the information I had, to appear more of a corperate shill. Or I could tell the truth. Hmm...

It's quite clear that the T&C and EULA for XBL breaches those sections, even a casual reading reveals these issues if you'd bother to check (indeed, it immediately fails the requirement for plain English and is in trouble on that alone). Given Microsoft have knowingly acted according to their interpretation, which breaches several terms, there is no possible defence. Sooner or later someone is going to call them on it, too.

And no, contracts are not "assumed" to be legal under UK law... (There is no assumption at all, it's between the two parties and their claims, exclusively...ahh, really cba to explain to you)

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh sure PJFFW, I could just lie instead of using the information I had, to appear more of a corperate shill. Or I could tell the truth. Hmm...

Or you could just say "here's what I heard, it may or may not be true and as I'm not going to back it up with any evidence you all can take it how ever you like". Rather than trying to put it forward as some sort of indisputable fact and then getting all huffy when people don't fall all over themselves to congratulate you on "sharing" your non-verified claims.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It's quite clear that the T&C and EULA for XBL breaches those sections, even a casual reading reveals these issues if you'd bother to check (indeed, it immediately fails the requirement for plain English and is in trouble on that alone). Given Microsoft have knowingly acted according to their interpretation, which breaches several terms, there is no possible defence. Sooner or later someone is going to call them on it, too.

According to you and which judge?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And no, contracts are not "assumed" to be legal under UK law... (There is no assumption at all, it's between the two parties and their claims, exclusively...ahh, really cba to explain to you)

You finally get something right! It is between the two parties and their claims! That's what I've been saying all along!

It isn't ruled illegal just because you say it is based on your limited understanding of how the law works. Instead, it is argued out between the two parties in a court of law!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

Except that is what the law says specifically does not happen with automatically unfair contract terms. You cannot argue that they are not violations of the law, they are. You are stubbornly refusing to accnowledge how UK contract law works. The entire point is you cannot excuse violating those terms, and when it comes to a written EULA where you've clearly done so, you don't have a leg to stand on.

You can argue about terms which are not automatically unfair, and try to defend things like using unclear language as well as the advertising issues, but not automatically unfair terms. The only thing to discuss about them is the remedy.

And right, you'd rather I shut up and shill for the corperates more.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Except that is what the law says specifically does not happen with automatically unfair contract terms. You cannot argue that they are not violations of the law, they are. You are stubbornly refusing to accnowledge how UK contract law works. The entire point is you cannot excuse violating those terms, and when it comes to a written EULA where you've clearly done so, you don't have a leg to stand on.

You can argue about terms which are not automatically unfair, and try to defend things like using unclear language as well as the advertising issues, but not automatically unfair terms. The only thing to discuss about them is the remedy.

Well if the terms are so obviously "automatically unfair" why haven't you saved the ENTIRE games industry(of which you are apparently a part) from the screwing over MS is doing by pointing these out to a judge and having them removed? Why hasn't anyone? I mean it is a very easy thing to get a lawyer these days, lots of them work on a "I don't get paid unless I win" basis. Why hasn't the Office of Fair Trading(or it's UK equivalent) done it's job and ordered MS to remove them?

Maybe it's because not everyone agrees with your assessment on how the law works and understands that just because DawnFalcon believes they are unfair does not automatically make them so.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And right, you'd rather I shut up and shill for the corperates more.

Not at all. As I said, I'd like you to do either one of the following two things....

1: Admit that the balance of probabilities favours your claims being, at the very least, highly exaggerated if not entirely made up and admit all your information is something that should be taken with a grain of salt as you are unwilling and unable to back it up with any evidence.

or

2: Give some sort of evidence to back up your claims. Of course none of this secret society stuff, wouldn't want you to break your sworn oath to not reveal the secret identities of your private internet forum group buddies who obviously must be taken upon their word as completely honest. Maybe just anything that isn't confidential. Maybe just some verifiable numbers of "mass bannings of innocent people". Maybe just anything at all that verifies your claims one little bit.

Until you do it's kind of like me saying I have proven beyond any doubt that man can travel faster than the speed of light and you all should believe me even though I'm not willing to back my claim up with any evidence at all.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[markbot]

Good for Microsoft! They have every right to protect themselves from criminals...just as we have the right to install security systems in our homes to prevent burglaries.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by markbot

Good for Microsoft! They have every right to protect themselves from criminals...just as we have the right to install security systems in our homes to prevent burglaries.

Agreed. I just don't see the uproar over it.

The policy is right their and well known. If you don't like it, don't buy their console, or don't pay for X-box Live access etc. Enough people do that, and they'll change their policy.

But they won't as most people don't care about modding hardware etc. and just buy it and use it as intended. That's a main draw for consoles vs. gaming on a PC. It just works. No having to install new video cards etc. No installing games, manually downloading patches, game mods etc. Just plug it in, stick in a game and play. Do that and you'll never have any problems.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Well if the terms are so obviously "automatically unfair" why haven't you saved the ENTIRE games industry(of which you are apparently a part) from the screwing over MS is doing by pointing these out to a judge and having them removed?

Privity, a lack of interest in hacking 360's and waiting six months, a lack of interest in taking expensive court cases and a lack of interest of pandering to trolls. I've linked this stuff... "The principle of freedom of contract can no longer be said to justify using standard terms to take away protection consumers would otherwise enjoy."

Why hasn't anyone? I mean it is a very easy thing to get a lawyer these days, lots of them work on a "I don't get paid unless I win" basis. Why hasn't the Office of Fair Trading(or it's UK equivalent) done it's job and ordered MS to remove them?

It's not its job. I've said several times that that the OFT does not proactively chase offenders for contract violations, it's simply not how it works - the complaint has to be taken up by an affected end-user!

And right, you really really want me to shut up and shill. I get it, you don't need to keep repeating it.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Privity, a lack of interest in hacking 360's and waiting six months, a lack of interest in taking expensive court cases and a lack of interest of pandering to trolls. I've linked this stuff... "The principle of freedom of contract can no longer be said to justify using standard terms to take away protection consumers would otherwise enjoy."

So the very industry you are involved in is being "screwed over by MS" and yet you have no interest in taking a seemingly slamdunk open and shut case action to stop them?

Seems a little fishy to me!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It's not its job. I've said several times that that the OFT does not proactively chase offenders for contract violations, it's simply not how it works - the complaint has to be taken up by an affected end-user!

So it would be the job of the OFT to order MS to remove the offending T&C's if there is a complaint by an end-user?

Strangely enough though, even with "mass bannings of innocent people" not a single person has complained to the OFT and the OFT have done not a single thing about these "automatically unfair" T&C's!

Oh yeah, I remember, every single "innocent bystander wrongly banned" has decided to appeal to MS first and not say anything to any official body or make any official complaints until they hear back from MS!

Uh-huh!

Originally Posted by DwanFalcon

And right, you really really want me to shut up and shill. I get it, you don't need to keep repeating it.

No, now it is becoming too much fun watching you duck and weave and try to change your argument again and again whilst still desperately hoping everyone will just say "oh DawnFalcon please bless us with your secret society, private forum, must knock three times and know the secret handshake to get it, information! We are so desperate to hear more of your unsupported and unsubstantiated claims!"

Cheers,
PKFFW