PSN lawsuit over banhammer gets dismissed |
Ó
The lawsuit, which alleged that Sony infringed on the banned player's right to free speech, was dismissed by a district court judge on grounds that with few exceptions, the First Amendment does not extend to private companies. It only protects people from having their right to free speech violated by the government. Kudos to all the whip-smart commenters who hit the nail right on the head in our first report about this case.
As for the banned player's "theft" claim (he said Sony essentially stole from him since he still had money left in his PlayStation Wallet when he got banned), the judge declined to rule on it, saying that it would be better to settle the allegation in state court.
Related articles:
Via GameSpot
28 Jumps Custom firmware 5.50GEN-D now out
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
Good. Less idiots on PSN the better.
that was a long time ago
I thought the wiggers were all on XBox 360?
ISOHaven and I called it exactly:
"LOL! Another situation where ISOHaven and I agree 100%.
The First Amendment DOES NOT EXTEND TO PROTECTING YOUR SPEECH IN A PRIVATE CONTEXT! It's SPECIFICALLY about actions taken by GOVERNMENT representatives . This guy has absolutely zero case whatsoever!"
Whether or not the First Amendment applies is debatable. I would be pretty sure that there are 'double-standards' when the Courts apply this type of logic. I think we could look to private landowner's rights, and public rights in stadiums, restaurants (smoking), etc. ....to find some good examples where the Govt speaks out of both sides of its @$#.
That aside, this ruling doesn't mean that he won't win at all: just that he needs to go to another type of Court.
I said so when they first reported this, and I'll say it again: I would agree that the behavior-ban should NOT be linked to the use of software purchased. Note that I did not say "service". I would agree that they could ban him for inappropriate behavior from using the network for gaming (at least with that account, and all the trophies, etc and leaderboards stats he's accumulated).
However, if he purchased any *games* from PSN with that account, which is now banned based on an activity he allegedly took part in on a *website* linked to the account .... now we're talking something different entirely.
Think about it: would YOU want all of your purchases rendered unusable because of the interpretation of one moderator on some website? --What if someone got a hold of your password, and before you could change it, they posted something deragatory to get you banned? What if someone filed a bogus complaint, and the Moderator just took it at face value? (maybe something you did or did not do in Home, or something that was misinterpreted?)
To me, there is a pretty VALID case that the PSN purchases (and usage of those downloads) is a separate item from usage of the Playstation Network (or Xbox downloads vs Xbox Live gameplay, for that matter). You figure, having been banned, that would now lock him out from re-downloading his PSN purchases if his console crashes, etc.
I think he'll win if he attacks it from that angle.
They should only ban people from playing multiplayer online that are acting up and maybe not permanently. There should be warnings and some chances. How about if you had your friend over at your house and he was playing under your ID when you were out of the room and decided to do some unharmful smack talking to someone and before you know it your ID gets the ban hammer. Now you lose all your games and content saved for your account? To me that doesn't sound right.
Yo accept the terms of the PSN in every on-line game. He violated terms of the PSN agreement. He no longer gets to enjoy the benefits. Everything on-line from Platstation involves the PSN. He got banned, he's done. He had two options act like a normal person, or actually read the "terms and conditions" he accepted everytime he took a game online the first time or update his firmware.
By the way you let someone use your ID to play a game you should make sure they are not a douche.
If someone gets hold of your password it's not hard to prove it's not you. Ever heard of IP addresses, really easy to prove it didin't come from your CPU or even easier with PS3 or PSP, they all have unique MAC addresses.
He won't win no matter what angle he attacks because once you accept an "end user agreement" you are playing by their rules. PERIOD.
Let's say for a minute you go to "Joe's Video Game Store" when you go there, you find the game you want and go to checkout line. The cashier says "Sorry That game is a Joe's club Exclusive" so you quickly sign up and receive the card and buy the game. By the end of the year you have bought $1,000 worth of games, but you now take part in a game tournament and you slip up and cuss at your teammate so you get kicked out. They also revoke your membership. You get home and find that your Joe's club exclusives were stolen! Who stole it? Well, you signed an agreement saying "Any and all software under this plan is Licensed not Sold. Your right to possess the software is contingent on you remaining a Joe's club member".
In all seriousness other than the hyperbole about the implied broken window, how is the above fictional scenario different than what Sony did. This is the danger of Digital Distribution and Product Activation. The Corporation has all the power to effectively Delete any and all content they wish.
What if A publisher didn't own the ""Rights" to the content. That one doesn't even need fiction or euphemisms as something that Orwellian actually happened. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=2