Flatline wrote on Dec 10, 2010, 21:27:
Wrong.
It's a legally binding contract. While in the US you can't sign away certain rights within a contract, it is legally binding generally speaking. I imagine most countries are similar in nature.
Besides, he's apparently being prosecuted under an existing English law, not the EULA. It's a shaky accusation, because you have to legally prove that a CoD server qualifies as part of the infrastructure of the internet. I'd argue, strongly, that it isn't.
I imagine he won't go to prison, but that they're trying to scare the bejeebus out of him and make him an example.
Heck, the kid should sue Activision for criminal negligence and harassment since he's a minor and their EULA did not specifically say not do to this in terms a 17 year old would comprehend.
Ignorance generally is not a valid legal defense. Besides, that's a civil matter, he's in trouble for a criminal matter.
Actually it's not a legally binding contract. This has been proven as such time and again in court. It may cover some items related to actual laws, but the contract on the whole can contain any verbiage they want. It's an agreement in writing, which just happens to hold more water than an agreement that you shake hands on.
Ignorance is an excellent defense, and offense. Why do you think we have so many obvious signs and warning labels?
Lastly, it's not ignorance that he should claim, it's the fact he's a minor and probably isn't technically "legal" to agree to any kind of contract with a corporate entity.
This comment was edited on Dec 11, 2010, 02:50.