Microsoft Starts Banning 360s on LIVE - MS Confirms

By OhMuffin
in Xbox

 Share

Recommended Posts

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted
Edit: as for the legality, they aren't bricking your Xbox, they are only restricting your access to Live, which would be in the TOS, you violate TOS = you don't have a legal leg to stand on (also you're only doing it to play pirated games)

Ah, but that just isn't true! :)

MS can put whatever they like into the TOS, but it still has to be considered 'fair' to the consumer. It is the same with their End User Licence Agreements. You can click away at 'OK' to the EULA all you like and STILL have the opportunity to defend yourself in court over some 'issue' you (or MS has with you) over it, because they havn't given you the opportunity to bargain over the agreements in the EULA with that stupid dialog box.

Also.. Backups != Pirated Games... This was legally won for consumers in Australia! Shame on you for suggesting otherwise! :)

I can see what MS is doing may be considered 'fair', but it would have to go to court to be proven regardless of what is in the Terms of Use.

Grand Master

DELTETHISACCOUNT

Posted
Posted
Can you get unbanned after you remove all the modifications?

I would like an answer to this too.

But I'm thinkin no, because the firmware of the DVD drive has been upgraded, trying to degrade it would be a pain in the ass.

Experienced

hava333

Posted
Posted
Good.

Only modifications i support are for playing Homebrew, now MS allow that, there is no reason for modding it.

Those poor pirates :laugh:

Edit: as for the legality, they aren't bricking your Xbox, they are only restricting your access to Live, which would be in the TOS, you violate TOS = you don't have a legal leg to stand on (also you're only doing it to play pirated games)

Completely agree. You create a Visual Studio type app that is free (basically how they have it now) that allows you to make custom content. You can then use this content on LIVE. See the problem with this is they would then have to figure out what is custom and what isnt as not to disrupt matchmaking, and thats where the problem currently lies. They need to get on it because if they can get custom content before sony or nintendo is ALL OVER, they win.

Grand Master

+Nik Louch Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

It doesn't matter if your region has laws against modding or not. It's part of the Microsoft EULA.

I see this as a good thing. As much as I modded my original X360 - that was purely for XBMC, I have no interest in pirated XBOX games, so it was homebrew I wanted. There is currently no real homebrew for the 360, and so the only reason to mod is piracy.

I will be getting a 360, I won't be modding it, I will be playing on Live

Grand Master

Pc_Madness

Posted
Posted
Edit: as for the legality, they aren't bricking your Xbox, they are only restricting your access to Live, which would be in the TOS, you violate TOS = you don't have a legal leg to stand on (also you're only doing it to play pirated games)

Ah thats good to know, my friend bought a 360 a few weeks back and got it modded to run burnt copies of games, I'd feel abit bad if he wasted $700 on it because of his stupidity. :p

Grand Master

Meshuggah

Posted
Posted
Also.. Backups != Pirated Games...

You have to open up the console to do this, thereby voiding your warranty (think about how many xbox 360's you hear dieing). To just play "backups" why would you waste your precious warranty, when that warranty also covers scratched games? Sometimes you are backing up because you have kids, but COME ON! Stop lying to yourself because we all know that MOST of the people doing this and voiding their warranty are doing it to play free games.

You can live in denial to try to prove your point, but I think you know the truth.

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted
You have to open up the console to do this, thereby voiding your warranty (think about how many xbox 360's you hear dieing). To just play "backups" why would you waste your precious warranty, when that warranty also covers scratched games? Sometimes you are backing up because you have kids, but COME ON! Stop lying to yourself because we all know that MOST of the people doing this and voiding their warranty are doing it to play free games.

You can live in denial to try to prove your point, but I think you know the truth.

Actually... sorry but you are a bit delusional (or perhaps lying to yourself) if you think my warranty here covers 'scratched' games. In fact I have to pay E.B. for this coverage, or take MS to court and prove the 360 scratched my disc. Even in the US, wasn't MS spinning the line that they were happy to cover scratched discs for MS produced games, but you would have to plead with other 3rd party manufacturers to replace scratched discs? Maybe that has changed?

Any road..

So most people who do this are doing it (in your opinion) to pirate games? Wow! Really?

I bet that argument didn't come up in Australia when Sony tried to dispute the legality of MOD chips. Oh hangon, it did. And like I said, the judge still through their case out.

Sorry matie, better luck next time.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Ah, but that just isn't true! :)

MS can put whatever they like into the TOS, but it still has to be considered 'fair' to the consumer. It is the same with their End User Licence Agreements. You can click away at 'OK' to the EULA all you like and STILL have the opportunity to defend yourself in court over some 'issue' you (or MS has with you) over it, because they havn't given you the opportunity to bargain over the agreements in the EULA with that stupid dialog box.

Also.. Backups != Pirated Games... This was legally won for consumers in Australia! Shame on you for suggesting otherwise! :)

I can see what MS is doing may be considered 'fair', but it would have to go to court to be proven regardless of what is in the Terms of Use.

We won the ability to mod them, not the ability to use "backups". (the ability to mod them was actually for region coding)

And Live is a extra service ontop of the 360, and for access to which you have to agree to certain conditions (e.g. don't mod your console, don't play pirated games, etc.), MS aren't stopping you from playing the games, they are stopping you from accessing Live, and they are well within their rights to do so.

Grand Master

neoadorable

Posted
Posted

ok, some things are a bit off about this debate,

Heyo is once more the voice of reason and is correct in saying that local law overrules any EULA you may have with a service provider. in general, you can't sign an agreement that violates the law of the land somewhere, for good and bad. this isn't MS/360 specific, it's for everything.

now, meshuggah is once more the company man, but this time he's doing it due to something i sympathize with: modders are intimately connected with piracy, you just can't ignore that, Heyo.

for that and for overall deterrence, i don't mind this crackdown. i bought into the 360 because i wanted a more regulated environment. that's not to say i want it opressive.

but just as an aside: in the six months before getting a 360, i bought like five games for the PC. in the first six months after becoming a 360'er, i was over 20 game titles bought, including arcade ones. that makes me a stakeholder and someone whose best interest MS are supposed to look after...if this latest tactic works in the long run, i'm for it, but it needs to be gently applied.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Thing is, the law allowing modding doesn't cover running "backups" and running pirated games, it covers region coding (we are allowed to mod consoles to import discs and such)

No court is going to say that you are allowed to pirate games, and even "backups" are questionable

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted (edited)
We won the ability to mod them, not the ability to use "backups". (the ability to mod them was actually for region coding)

And Live is a extra service ontop of the 360, and for access to which you have to agree to certain conditions (e.g. don't mod your console, don't play pirated games, etc.), MS aren't stopping you from playing the games, they are stopping you from accessing Live, and they are well within their rights to do so.

The trial was on the legality of MOD chips themselves. It was ruled that they do not allow copyright infringement to take place as they are not actually doing the copying themselves.

But the exact ruling by the court was...

"There is no copyright reason why the purchaser should not be entitled to copy the CD-ROM and modify the console in such a way as to enjoy his or her lawfully acquired property without inhibition,"

Doesn't this very quote suggest that backups are perfectly legal according to this judge as far as copyright law goes?

Of course it was framed with a ruling on MOD chip legality, but he basically states that the purchaser is entitled to "Copy the CD-ROM". I realise that with our free trade agreement this may change, but there it was.

And Live is a extra service ontop of the 360, and for access to which you have to agree to certain conditions (e.g. don't mod your console, don't play pirated games, etc.), MS aren't stopping you from playing the games, they are stopping you from accessing Live, and they are well within their rights to do so.

That is what I am really wondering. As I've mentioned, you guys seem to think that EULAs override governments and regional laws, but I am extremely dubious of that.

If I flash a 360 and get banned, and then flog that 360 off to my friend who finds out MS has banned his legally purchased console from LIVE based upon it's unique machine ID...

...Well let's just say that I am severly dubious that MS would have a leg to stand on in court regardless of what I had supposedly agreed to in my EULA with them.

And regardless the EULA is quite meaningless because it does not allow you to bargain over the terms with the other party.

Show me a single court case where a EULA has held up in court (in Australia) and we can go from there.

I get depressed that you guys seem to think that EULAs mean anything. They are legally cloudy at best- like pea soup cloudy. That you would be happy to sign your rights away on something you could wipe your bottom on for all it's worth is very, very depressing.

Sorry, a quick edit but my point still is that it would have to go to court to determine that MS's actions are fair and the TOS or EULA would only be a framework to begin the debate on. They arn't concrete agreements between you and MS as MS never gave you the opportunity to negotiate with them.

Edited by Heyo
Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Ok, i'll give you that, we are allowed to make backup copies.

But that still doesn't mean you cant be banned from Live, it has nothing to do with the EULA or such, they run a service, they choose who gets access, simple as that.

Same way an ISP can cut you off for downloading too much, their service, their rules.

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted
now, meshuggah is once more the company man, but this time he's doing it due to something i sympathize with: modders are intimately connected with piracy, you just can't ignore that, Heyo.

Oh I know. I even understand the position MS is taking and think it is fair in some ways.

What gets me peeved is that people think MS can just throw whatever they like into some crappy dialogue box and it's supposed to be an all or nothing proposition for me to accept those terms- It isn't. Nor do they those terms somehow magically bypass the law of the land- they don't.

The other thing that peeves me off (and you are already aware of this from that other thread LOL) is how MS always seem happy to restrict my rights, but it's never happy to give me any which is giving me a more and more negative view of the company.

Like why can't they allow us to make backups of our 360 software, so as to circumvent this whole argument?

Even if we had to be logged in to LIVE to use the backup I would find that acceptable, but for whatever reason they are far more interested in pouring their resources and money into restricting my rights than doing anything for me- their paying, legit customer.

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted
Same way an ISP can cut you off for downloading too much, their service, their rules.

I think this is our one sticking point which is odd because I generally agree with you. :)

I think you see it as "MS should be able to run LIVE however they like".

However I dispute this, and could in court (which is all I am saying really) where it would come down to...

a) Was I informed of the Terms of Use,

b) Whether I had opportunity to bargain on those terms,

c) How fair are the terms anyway?

If MS banned my console, don't think for a second I could not test that in court. It would hardly be a case of "not having a leg to stand on" in my opinion. :)

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I think this is our one sticking point which is odd because I generally agree with you. :)

I think you see it as "MS should be able to run LIVE however they like".

However I dispute this, and could in court (which is all I am saying really) where it would come down to...

a) Was I informed of the Terms of Use,

b) Whether I had opportunity to bargain on those terms,

c) How fair are the terms anyway?

If MS banned my console, don't think for a second I could not test that in court. It would hardly be a case of "not having a leg to stand on" in my opinion. :)

The bottom line is that you accepted the Terms of Use, so whether they're fair or not makes no difference. You agreed and you cannot seek recourse for them doing exactly what they said they would.

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted
The bottom line is that you accepted the Terms of Use, so whether they're fair or not makes no difference. You agreed and you cannot seek recourse for them doing exactly what they said they would.

Absolute rubbish.

What if one of the terms was:

"You can not use this service if you are a female."

If I was a female and clicked "OK" because I felt I should not be obstructed from my legal rights to use the service(as defined by the Australian Government, not MS as you guys seem to believe) and subsequently MS banned me from the service because my username was "Mary".

You seriously suggest I would have no legal recourse?

Of course I could go to a court to argue that the Terms of Use were not fair.

You crack me up. :)

Mentor

Typhon

Posted
Posted
i have 2 xbox 360's one i admit is modded but i only play offline with it the other i bought legitimately and plan to use this to play online games, and just as a side note i normally buy the games i download after a week or two, it just fills the gap till pay day @D

That's what the demos are for. Stealing is stealing in my book.

Collaborator

Heyo

Posted
Posted
^^MS would refer you to the Terms of Use. Which you accepted upon signing up for Live.

No matie.. I know this is hard to grasp but MS don't run the country.

I would refer the Judge to what I thought was unfair about the Term I had no opportunity to bargain on, and then our lawyers (MS and mine) would argue over that, and then a judge would make the decision.

Don't like them, don't use them.

I'm suprised you didn't just tell me to leave the country for not agreeing to MS's terms.

Apparently MS runs it nowdays... :)

Rising Star

Morpheus Phreak

Posted
Posted
Microsoft ######, why would this be good?

Oh by the way, would it be just ban from Live or everything internets on xbox?

Whoa, I love the logic you have there.

Those of us who actually pay for things are ######?

Why don't you go on down to LA and live on the streets for a month and really learn what the word ###### means before you throw it around.

That'll give you the prison bitch feeling that I know you've been missing.

No matie.. I know this is hard to grasp but MS don't run the country.

I would refer the Judge to what I thought was unfair about the Term I had no opportunity to bargain on, and then our lawyers (MS and mine) would argue over that, and then a judge would make the decision.

I'm suprised you didn't just tell me to leave the country for not agreeing to MS's terms.

Apparently MS runs it nowdays... :)

You're right MS doesnt run the country. Our government does.

The same government that defines the laws & states that clearly worded contracts are legally binding UNLESS they violate an already standing law.

Microsoft DOES have the right to decide how you use their internet service.

If you violate the CLEAR terms that they define for you then it's YOUR fault.

Any lawyer would just laugh at you, unless they wanted your money. There's not one chance in hell that you'd win, but you'd still be broke by the end of it.

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Absolute rubbish.

What if one of the terms was:

"You can not use this service if you are a female."

If I was a female and clicked "OK" because I felt I should not be obstructed from my legal rights to use the service(as defined by the Australian Government, not MS as you guys seem to believe) and subsequently MS banned me from the service because my username was "Mary".

You seriously suggest I would have no legal recourse?

Of course I could go to a court to argue that the Terms of Use were not fair.

You crack me up. :)

You can dispute the TOS before you agree to it, but once you agree to it then that's it, and you're saying that you agree with them and you will not dispute them.

Grand Master

+InsaneNutter MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
Do MS offer a refund to people who have paid for Live and who are now banned? Is that in their EULA or T&C's

they could be taken to court over this

Then they woud take you to court for pirating 360 games, who do you think woud win? :p

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.