Banned PS3 Gamer Sues

GamePolitics reports on a lawsuit filed by a PlayStation 3 gamer banned from the PlayStation network due to his behavior in Resistance: Fall of Man. The account of his complaint seems a bit scattered, citing first amendment rights, the plaintiff's case of agoraphobia, and that the ban "in essence, is stealing money from the player," in demanding $55,000 in punitive damages. All but that last part about the player's money seems a bit frivolous to us, especially the first amendment part, but we are not attorneys, so this is passed on in case something actually might come of this, since it obviously would have far-reaching implications if such a case was successful.
View : : :
31 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
31.
 
Re: Banned Gamer Sues
Jul 25, 2009, 02:38
31.
Re: Banned Gamer Sues Jul 25, 2009, 02:38
Jul 25, 2009, 02:38
 
I'm not sure how First Amendment rights apply here - since the dork was playing over Sony's network.

@ Zeph - Uh, buddy? I didn't bother reading your whole post after you started blarbing (I even came up with an onomatopoeic word for you) about "facism" and whatnot, because I pretty much read all that was needed. Point being - do a little research and figure out the distinguishing factors of freedom of speech on public premise versus private. If it's not government owned, public property, or a specially-stated public forum, you don't have right to freedom of speech. And you're sure as hell not going to be invited to stand in my living room spouting off a high-school understanding of fascism or racism.

This comment was edited on Jul 25, 2009, 02:40.
30.
 
Re: 1st Amendment
Jul 22, 2009, 16:09
30.
Re: 1st Amendment Jul 22, 2009, 16:09
Jul 22, 2009, 16:09
 
Right, he's not asking for $5000. He's asking for $55,000.
10. The plaintiff hopes for pain and suffering damages along with punitive damages in the amount of 55,000 dollars. The plaintiff also wishes for all additional relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. The plaintiff has video evidence to help prove his case.

If you've actually read the complaint, you may notice that very little of it is part of a request to get his money back. Most of it is centred around claims of emotional pain and suffering.

This comment was edited on Jul 22, 2009, 16:11.
29.
 
1st Amendment
Jul 22, 2009, 08:54
29.
1st Amendment Jul 22, 2009, 08:54
Jul 22, 2009, 08:54
 
I think this is a good lawsuit. The kid isn't asking for $5000 for pain and suffering, he just wants his money back and to set a precendent.

It doesn't matter what he says, when you start limiting free speech, you start moving toward fascism. If he wants to rant on and on with a bunch of racist rhetoric, so what. The funny thing about the video games I enjoy is that the morality of them allows for the simulated murder and mayhem, but don't call anyone a name... It's utterly ridiculous.

I agree with the comment about the Entitlement generation, but I have to add that I'm really sick of the Victim generation. To me, beating up an old man or a white guy if your white or a gay man or black man or a dog or a kid or woman is all the same. It's all hate. It's all violence. Calling one of these scenarios a hate crime is like distinguishing crimes based on bullet size. It's just nonsensical. It's all the same. If you're beating someone up, you're wrong. I mean unless it's the guy that raped your kid or something, then it's justifiable homocide. But if its just an argument or an aggression, it's all immature lack of self control and anti-social bad behavior.

But if I want to say things about your mother, your wife, your kid, your life, your religion, your political point of view, your diet, your ideas, your face, your race, or anything I want to say, then its freedom of speech. I mean, unless I'm specifically stating that I wish to do harm to someone, who cares what I say? Sticks and stones don't you know? Only a weak-minded person is going to be trolled. Everyone else looks past it, by either being shocked and moving on or ignoring it an moving on. Only an immature child reacts to verbal expression.

Whatever this guy said, he should either be sued in criminal court for slander, libel, or threats of violence, or he should get his money back and the gaming companies should take note not to mess with laws of the United States of America. The same goes for Gaming Servers. They might think that it's a private property, but by law it is a service to the general public unless it is always locked by password like a private club would only allow certain paying members to enter. Otherwise, it's a public area. And once again, simulated murder completely trumps some silly little racist comment or trivial insult. Even a child would know the difference. The problem is that almost all human beings are followers and everyone is following everyone else's butts so close that they can't even realize the obvious truth that violently killing your oppoents to the point that their bodies are exploding is far, far, far, far, far, far worse than some verbal statement no matter how horrible it is unless that statement is by law illegal. Being racist is not illegal. It might not be a mature attitude, but its still a person's right to be ignorant and despise other people for being different. Murder however is illegal. It's pretty obvious to even a small child which of the two are worse.

I say, give this kid his $55 back and tell the gaming community to stop crying like little girls everytime someone says something derogatory.
28.
 
Re: You think he will get laughed of court
Jul 22, 2009, 00:05
28.
Re: You think he will get laughed of court Jul 22, 2009, 00:05
Jul 22, 2009, 00:05
 
Ever hear of the lady who spilled coffee on her lap from Macdonalds, she got 2.5 million. She bought coffee , she put it between her legs while driving, got into an accident, spilled and burnt her, She got millions.

NEVER underestimate the stupidy of civil court.

*cringe* Actually, in the coffee case it made sense why she won. That case has taken on almost urban-legend status since apparently most people haven't read the actual facts of the case and why she was awarded judgement. Suffice to say there was a lot more to it than simply spilling coffee on herself.

Oh and she actually received less than a million, not the millions widely reported.

This comment was edited on Jul 22, 2009, 00:07.
Avatar 54594
27.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 23:12
27.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 23:12
Jul 21, 2009, 23:12
 
I'm all for punishing people but it should be reasonable. So it should be a temporary ban (say a month) and should be restricted to the game in question (at least on the first offence) - each subsequent ban should last longer but after a period without issue (say 6 months) it should be nullified.

You must be very naive...or play very few online console games.

These kids can't be "Reformed". Banning him in small increments that increase with each offense won't change things. He's better off banned, and the network is better off without him "stinking it up".

When you sign up for a PSN account (Or an XBL account) you'll have a code of conduct agreement to read. Very few people read it, but if you do you'll see that there is wording that says they can ban you for any actions that are deemed offensive or disruptive. Clearly, harassing other players verbally is offensive to most of the community...so they banned him. Plain and simple.

I applaud Sony for having the guts to do this.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 23:12.
Avatar 13929
26.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 21:23
26.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 21:23
Jul 21, 2009, 21:23
 
No offense theyarecomingforyou, but one less idiot with a microphone on Xbox Live/PSN is one less I have to mute and report later.
Avatar 12670
25.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 20:31
25.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 20:31
Jul 21, 2009, 20:31
 
The player still own his games & console ..can play them as much as he wants as long as he does not use Sony's infrastructure.
But that's like being banned from wearing a certain pair of shoes over public pavements / sidewalks because you kicked over some flowers in the public park - sure you can still wear about them about the house but ultimately they're worth very little as a pair of shoes because of the restrictions placed on their usage.

I'm all for punishing people but it should be reasonable. So it should be a temporary ban (say a month) and should be restricted to the game in question (at least on the first offence) - each subsequent ban should last longer but after a period without issue (say 6 months) it should be nullified. Don't get me wrong, I hate punks like this and hate hackers and cheaters; but I also understand that people do stupid shit, especially when they've been having a bad time. People should be given a chance to repair the damage they've done. I'd suggest fining people that abuse the service but I could see companies getting a bit sensitive over the smallest of issues because they can make money from it.

As soon as I read the words "first amendment" I knew he hired a sleazebag for a lawyer. The layer knows it frivolous, yet also knows he's gonna get paid nicely.
Yeah. It's all over the place and most of the key points have absolutely no legal merit. It's a shame, though, as the issue is relevant.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
24.
 
You think he will get laughed of court
Jul 21, 2009, 20:20
24.
You think he will get laughed of court Jul 21, 2009, 20:20
Jul 21, 2009, 20:20
 
Ever hear of the lady who spilled coffee on her lap from Macdonalds, she got 2.5 million. She bought coffee , she put it between her legs while driving, got into an accident, spilled and burnt her, She got millions.

NEVER underestimate the stupidy of civil court.
23.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 20:11
23.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 20:11
Jul 21, 2009, 20:11
 
once again, a frivolous lawsuit by someone who doesn't take responsibility for their own actions, and who is completely stupid.

The first amendment, the constitution itself applies to the GOVERNMENT not private property. He agreed to certain terms of a contract and as such, must honor them. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to agree, and the offerer doesn't have to supply the service either.

You do NOT have freedom of speech on private property, be it virtual or not. The owner of the property has the right to eject you if you dishonor his/her rules. It's public spaces and your own property you have rights to as governed by the Constitution.

As soon as I read the words "first amendment" I knew he hired a sleazebag for a lawyer. The layer knows it frivolous, yet also knows he's gonna get paid nicely.

I'd put this gamer at narcissistic and moronic levels measured in astronomical units.
22.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 19:57
22.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 19:57
Jul 21, 2009, 19:57
 
Who cares?

I bet he said some real nasty shit to get banned like that. Yeah, missing you already, pal. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

They should do this more often. First amendment absolutely does not apply. Sony will show up, provide logs of what he said, and it will get laughed out of court.
21.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 19:12
21.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 19:12
Jul 21, 2009, 19:12
 
Doubt the kid stands a chance, He owns the games & the console but the he does not own the network, they do. He can do what ever he wants but just not while using their network.

It does not matter if he messed up in one game, it's all about what he did on the PSN or what ever it is called. He messed up while using their network therefore he is cooked IMHO. Does not matter if he hosted or if it was dedicated or whatever...it went through Sony's stuff.

The player still own his games & console ..can play them as much as he wants as long as he does not use Sony's infrastructure.
Single player no online or network some PS3s, split screen etc..

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 19:16.
20.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 19:00
NKD
20.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 19:00
Jul 21, 2009, 19:00
NKD
 
Again, just because they say so in their ToS does not mean that's legally true. They sell content that can only be used over their private service and that opens up a new slew of problems with consumer laws when you deny the customer rights to access it.

Companies are well within their rights to cancel a service for violation of the rules they have established for that service. There are really only three possibilities here: Either people can never be banned from a service if it denies them access to licensed content for which they have paid, companies can be forced to refund the total cost of the lost content, or companies can no longer sell people anything that depends on their service.

None are particularly attractive alternatives to simply allowing them to be banned and lose access to that content. If you do the crime, you gotta do the time.

Here's how I see it: That expensive car you just bought won't be much use if you go and get your drivers license revoked, so be careful.
"Sometimes, there are two sides. But more often, one side says it is a car. And one side says it is an umbrella. And only one is right. And the other one doesn’t deserve our attention." -Shepard Smith
Avatar 43041
19.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 18:30
19.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 18:30
Jul 21, 2009, 18:30
 
But I have to ask.. what all would you have to say/do to go from a warning, to having your entire console banned on Xbox Live? And what exactly would you have to do for the same with PSN?

most likely threats of bodily/sexual/property harm of some sort.. the same thing you could possibly get arrested for if it happened out in public
18.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 18:10
18.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 18:10
Jul 21, 2009, 18:10
 
Well the world should sue him for being a cry baby and not having a life
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
17.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 17:24
17.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 17:24
Jul 21, 2009, 17:24
 
/facepalm

That is all.
"Everybody out of the universe!" - Nibbler, Futurama
16.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 16:06
Verno
 
16.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 16:06
Jul 21, 2009, 16:06
 Verno
 
but as stated before he is on a private service and they can/do anything they want.
Now had it said ANYWHERE that his money would be refunded for a violation of the rules HE AGREED TO, he would have grounds for a lawsuit.

Again, just because they say so in their ToS does not mean that's legally true. They sell content that can only be used over their private service and that opens up a new slew of problems with consumer laws when you deny the customer rights to access it.

But with Xbox Live they have stages of bannage, from temp bans, to certain games being banned, to gamertags being banned. I have yet to hear of anyone having a console banned from Xbox Live.

Your consoles get banned for piracy. You do not get banned for cheating, you receive a cheating message on your gamer tag that other players can see. Temporary bans are only used for customer complaints (ie - swearing at an 8 year old during 1 vs 100). Permanent bans are console-only. The reason for this is that they do not want to get a lawsuit when that guy gets banned who bought 20k worth of shit on XBL. It also opens up a new revenue stream for them because the person has to repurchase a console and recover their gamertag as it will not be accessible on the old one.

But I have to ask.. what all would you have to say/do to go from a warning, to having your entire console banned on Xbox Live?

Pirate a game and be caught through the disc detection methods they've devised or by earning achievements before the game's retail street date are two ways. I'm sure there are more. I have no clue about the PSN enforcement policies as I don't own a PS3 (well I have a PSP PSN account but whatever).
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
15.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 15:58
15.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 15:58
Jul 21, 2009, 15:58
 
I agree his money should be refunded to him, but as stated before he is on a private service and they can/do anything they want.
Now had it said ANYWHERE that his money would be refunded for a violation of the rules HE AGREED TO, he would have grounds for a lawsuit.

But with Xbox Live they have stages of bannage, from temp bans, to certain games being banned, to gamertags being banned. I have yet to hear of anyone having a console banned from Xbox Live.

But I have to ask.. what all would you have to say/do to go from a warning, to having your entire console banned on Xbox Live? And what exactly would you have to do for the same with PSN?
They just don't ban your console on Xbox Live for a slip of the tongue.
Avatar 12670
14.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 14:39
Verno
 
14.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 14:39
Jul 21, 2009, 14:39
 Verno
 
edit -- oh the online network is free to use; that murks up the legal water a bit.

Let's make it even more confusing. What happens when you get banned for abuse in one game but cannot access your multiplayer-only content in another? There are MP only games on XBL and PSN. It's an odd situation and I'm interested in the legal outcome even if this particular guy is a douchebag.

Companies that ban users off their game/network need to rethink their strategy. Why lose a customer? Just give him a virtual ticket to pay, for violating some rules. Make him pay money and then he is back playing, and each time he violates the same rule make him pay more. This way you continue to make money and dont lose a customer. Learn.

This is essentially what XBL does, they milk you for every penny. Your gamer tag doesn't get banned, your console's serial # does. You can still access your Live account, just not from that console. So you have to buy a new console. It's smart business.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 14:40.
Playing: Risk of Rain 2, Jedi Fallen Order, Last of Us II
Watching: Tenet, Peninsula, The Pale Door
Avatar 51617
13.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 13:27
13.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 13:27
Jul 21, 2009, 13:27
 
Companies that ban users off their game/network need to rethink their strategy. Why lose a customer? Just give him a virtual ticket to pay, for violating some rules. Make him pay money and then he is back playing, and each time he violates the same rule make him pay more. This way you continue to make money and dont lose a customer. Learn.
"On 2646.215 I myself attacked & destroyed TCS Tiger's Claw in my Jalthi heavy fighter"
Bakhtosh Redclaw Nar Kiranka
Avatar 7413
12.
 
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues
Jul 21, 2009, 13:26
12.
Re: Banned PS3 Gamer Sues Jul 21, 2009, 13:26
Jul 21, 2009, 13:26
 
Verno makes all good points. Sure Sony has the right to expel him on a service they provide, but do they have the right to keep his money? Shouldnt he get a pro-rated refund?

edit -- oh the online network is free to use; that murks up the legal water a bit.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 13:32.
31 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older