Apparently Xbox Live's New Terms of Service MUST be accepted; no opting out

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Terms of USE. If you don't like what they say, then tough sh!t for you.DrTrafalgarLaw

It's their service, they have a right to have control over it. You're conflating your rights as an individual with the idea that you can supercede their rights to control the service that they're providing. Don't piss in the lemonade stand and you'll be fine.

You know as suspicious as those agreements are some of the things it says are just downright ridiculous that you can't imagine how it could relate to your console. Yet it makes you wonder what kind of things people have been doing with their consoles that they mention them..

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

Wasdie

Since I'm not a self entitled little **** I don't plan on suing MS or anyone else over some BS looking for a handout.WithoutGraceXII

they do it because it is way too easy to sue, and people DO go around just to sue companys for money, blame the customer not the companygamer-adam1

Exactly. And that's what both MS & Sony are trying to prevent. Prevent people from suing them over the silliest things. Pretty soon, even Nintendo may do the same thing.

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

Wasdie

The is issue it that Xbox live is a service that you pay for, and most people pay if in periods. 1 year being the most common, followed by 3 months, then 1 month.

By changing the rules, and denying access to consumers that bought the subscription to the service before the company made the rule change, the company is guilty of breach of contract. The company must grandfather in ALL exsisting clients.

Pretty simple, eh?

this horrible. m$ milks you and forces you to pay xboxlive then they can ban you and they keep your xboxlive money because you have no choice but to accept their terms. thats pretty horrible**

this horrible. m$ milks you and forces you to pay xboxlive then they can ban you and they keep your xboxlive money because you have no choice but to accept their terms. thats pretty horrible**

_SWAG_

I actually read the terms before agreeing to it and one thing stood out. It said, "if you are underage then get a parent/guardian to agree to the terms." If a minor agrees to the terms anyways then it is not binding. Minors can void contracts at will, I would imagine this would be the same for ToU. So if something goes wrong, I would still sue and say mykid agreed to the terms, not me. I am sure lawyers can find better loopholes and word it much better than me.

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

almasdeathchild

[QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

gameking5000

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

Wasdie

Aside from these arbitration clauses being ridiculously anti-consumer, the fact that people have potentially invested thousands of dollars in XBL and related products (ie hardware and games) based on the old ToU? It's the argument levied at Sony for removing Linux from the PS3 turned up to 11: if I bought an Xbox, games, accessories, DLC, XBL subscriptions etc. based on the old ToU, it's unreasonable for MS to simply change those terms whenever they want, however they want and tell those who disagree with the new terms "tough shiit".

I think this is a bit of serious underhanded legal manipulation on Microsoft's part.

I just watched Erin Brockovich the other day and this reminds me of how the evil corporation actually sent people out telling the townsfolk about the chemicals in the water, lying and actually saying it was good for them, just so they could create a legal situation where those people wouldn't be able to sue for any illness if they didn't do so within a year of being told because in law after being told they only have a year to file a suit. That part however was never made clear to the townsfolk, nor the part about them actually lying about the poisonous affects of the chemicals in the water.

This kind of legal manipulation needs to be dealt with very severely in my opinion indeed because these lawyers are taking advantage of their privileged position and detailed knowledge of the law system to trick people into giving away rights they would never actually give away if they fully understood what they were doing when signing these contracts and accepting these conditions.

The same basic thing is happening here imo albeit in a slightly less life threatening way.

I absolutely abhor this kind of abuse of power.

amaneuvering

You should see the documental call Hot Coffe.

There was a movement call citizents agains friggits law sues or something like that,it was created to create an impression that normal people like you and me,were tire of friggit law sues and things like that,but it was actually a very big group of powerful companies join toguether to create a false impression,and to stir law makers into shrinking your rights.

There are several problems with this and sadly some of us are guilty as well.

Getting millions for stupid claims,it has happen and people will sue for anything,here at super markets in the ile where the rice is,they have floor carpets,becuse there were several law sues,because people actually saw rice on the floor and took a fall,and claimed they trip on he rice fallen from broken packages.

So people who would sue for anything are big problem.

Also your congress man who don't actually make legislation blocking companies from trying to block your rights,is a fight between the ones who sue becuase one fly landed on their soup when they took it home and start it to eat it on the street vs companies with huge millions that don't want to loose more million any more,and don't want to be liable for the problems or defect their products have.

The problem here is that the real people who have valid low suits get trap by this as well.

In teh documental i told you,a woman sue a doctor for 5 million,because he was pregnant with twins but only had 1 placenta,he was complaining of pains,and instead of doing a sonogram the doctors send her home,a few hours latter she went to another hospital and gave birth,one of the twins wasn't getting oxigen right and the doctors that send her home fail to check her,that one twin was born with mental problems,which basically render him unable to do normal things on its own,he would depen on other until he dies,the other twin was fine and you see them both on the documental and you see how much damage was done to the kid because of the doctors bad practice.

Never the less she won and was awarded more than 5 million,but a limit that was imposse on the state she lives for law sues,actually private her and her family of that money,and she was only given the top ammount the that law allowed,need less to say the money she got did not server her that well,a big part of that money went for lawyer,tax and all that crap she was basically left with nothing.

Many people may not know it but those big companies love to pay swags to congress man,and will pay top dollars to people to persue what they want.

So we're saying that if we don't like what they tell us we can and can't do in order to use their online service, it's bad...? How is this any different from what any other company does? Log onto a private network and use their internet, via school, library, etc, and it says "Do not post or visit or view pornographic material, strong violent content, etc" and then you say "accept" but go look up porn, are you going to say "It was my right to!" Sorry but no... If You want to use XBL then you have to agree to these terms, I mean... you've been using it before this, right? So you've already agreed to the other terms, or are you telling me you never read them...?yoshi_64

Exactly what I said like 4 pages back. I'm not understanding the logic against it :?

[QUOTE="yoshi_64"]So we're saying that if we don't like what they tell us we can and can't do in order to use their online service, it's bad...? How is this any different from what any other company does? Log onto a private network and use their internet, via school, library, etc, and it says "Do not post or visit or view pornographic material, strong violent content, etc" and then you say "accept" but go look up porn, are you going to say "It was my right to!" Sorry but no... If You want to use XBL then you have to agree to these terms, I mean... you've been using it before this, right? So you've already agreed to the other terms, or are you telling me you never read them...?lunatic0495

Exactly what I said like 4 pages back. I'm not understanding the logic against it :?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

Slow_Show

Aside from these arbitration clauses being ridiculously anti-consumer, the fact that people have potentially invested thousands of dollars in XBL and related products (ie hardware and games) based on the old ToU? It's the argument levied at Sony for removing Linux from the PS3 turned up to 11: if I bought an Xbox, games, accessories, DLC, XBL subscriptions etc. based on the old ToU, it's unreasonable for MS to simply change those terms whenever they want, however they want and tell those who disagree with the new terms "tough shiit".

Unfortunately, people in this forum see themselves more as fanboys rather than consumers. Every time an issue like this comes up, it is always minimalized by whichever fanboy faction represents it. If you read the responses in other threads addressing similar issues, you would think that it is better to voluntarily be screwed over than be treated fairly.

um i've read over it and yes it does contain an opt out you have to send in your intent to opt out in written form it was pretty much the same exact legalise that Sony used.

That is marginally worst that Sony's agreement (marginally in that you do have an opt out for Sony but seriously, how many do you expect to use it). DerekLoffin

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"] So you think it's right for them to create a totaliarian control mechanism over their own closed platform, that takes away basic civil rights that we fought hundreds of years for, recorded in the consititution? Do you think it's fine for companies to stand above the law?lawlessx

And people should complain. Although this may not be the best forum for it, spreading awareness of BS behavior is a good thing for us as consumers. Because I take it you're not crazy people who think forbidding US class actions is a pro-consumer move right?

If it's deemed ok in your state then ultimately it does come down to users accepting it vs those who do not. I'll just say that if you knowingly agree to this clause, you're also abandoning your right to complain about whatever may follow. See EA and RROD for examples.

And that's another thing, people will agree to the ToS without knowing about this. Recent amendements to a ToS should be clearly marked and easily found.

Anyway, next gen is gonna suck.

edit
Forgot that the option to opt out of future amendments to the ToS exists. So go do that.

um i've read over it and yes it does contain an opt out you have to send in your intent to opt out in written form it was pretty much the same exact legalise that Sony used.

WilliamRLBaker

UPDATE 2 -
Microsoft tells us you in fact cannot opt out of the agreement, and must sign on the dotted line to continue using Xbox Live. The terminology in the ToS used to "opt out" applies only to future changes made after this agreement, they say, not to this agreement itself. They also provided the following statement:Kotaku

Users must agree to the new clause to the Terms of Use in order to continue using Xbox LIVE. Changes to the Terms of Use are designed to ensure that our customers have an easy way to file a dispute without requiring formal legal action. They may now bring a dispute to our attention by filling out a simple Notice of Dispute form found at www.xbox.com/notice and mailing in documentation in support of their claim. We will then work to resolve the dispute to their satisfaction within 60 days. Any customer unsatisfied with the outcome of this informal process may easily initiate arbitration with the American Arbitration Association.

Customers may also choose to bring their claims in their local small claims court if they meet the normal jurisdictional requirements. For detailed information, please visit: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/LiveTOU.Microsoft

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

its kiinda sick seeing all these fanboys just accepting it, i think is bs a company makes a move ike that.

gamer-adam1

they do it because it is way too easy to sue, and people DO go around just to sue companys for money, blame the customer not the company

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well if you don't agree to use their product on their terms, they don't want you useing it.

What's the issue here?

Game-fu

Aside from these arbitration clauses being ridiculously anti-consumer, the fact that people have potentially invested thousands of dollars in XBL and related products (ie hardware and games) based on the old ToU? It's the argument levied at Sony for removing Linux from the PS3 turned up to 11: if I bought an Xbox, games, accessories, DLC, XBL subscriptions etc. based on the old ToU, it's unreasonable for MS to simply change those terms whenever they want, however they want and tell those who disagree with the new terms "tough shiit".

Unfortunately, people in this forum see themselves more as fanboys rather than consumers. Every time an issue like this comes up, it is always minimalized by whichever fanboy faction represents it. If you read the responses in other threads addressing similar issues, you would think that it is better to voluntarily be screwed over than be treated fairly.

And no I couldn't have put all this into one post. Quote limit remember.

Oh and since Glitchspot has broken in yet another quite astounding manner, if you want to reply you're gonna have to use quick quote+preview.

And speaking of class action...
************lass
What, is that not a forbidden word all of a sudden? Was about to complain about how I couldn't link to articles about ****actions.

What? now it's...now it is? But not the first instance? I give up.

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

its kiinda sick seeing all these fanboys just accepting it, i think is bs a company makes a move ike that.

McStrongfast

they do it because it is way too easy to sue, and people DO go around just to sue companys for money, blame the customer not the company

And thats the point of the new TOU,MS dont want to pay out thousands of dollars to lawyers so they dont have to pay $5 to a consumer

This still isnt a big deal.but Im beginning to get annoyed with kotaku scare mongering for no apparent reason

BTW, in America the no-lawsuit clause had been upheld and is legally binding.

Donno about other countries, but in Canada such clauses have been struck down.

So we're saying that if we don't like what they tell us we can and can't do in order to use their online service, it's bad...? How is this any different from what any other company does? Log onto a private network and use their internet, via school, library, etc, and it says "Do not post or visit or view pornographic material, strong violent content, etc" and then you say "accept" but go look up porn, are you going to say "It was my right to!" Sorry but no... If You want to use XBL then you have to agree to these terms, I mean... you've been using it before this, right? So you've already agreed to the other terms, or are you telling me you never read them...?yoshi_64

The difference is those networks are generally free and are pure services: you can't have any expectations of rights for something you're being given free of charge, and there's no harm to walking away if you disagree. With XBL however, you've likely spent hundreds of dollars on hardware, hundreds of dollars on games, potentially hundreds of dollars on DLC and other XBL content and slapped down $50 for a year of Gold, all of which would have been purchased based on the rights laid out in the old ToU. For MS to not offer compensation or a way to be grandfathered in falls somewhere between unbelievably dickish and illegal.

/Facepalm

Doesn't EVERY site, game, do this? come on. tell me you've been to a site where you sign up and don't have to accept the Terms of service (whether you read it or not.)

[QUOTE="yoshi_64"]So we're saying that if we don't like what they tell us we can and can't do in order to use their online service, it's bad...? How is this any different from what any other company does? Log onto a private network and use their internet, via school, library, etc, and it says "Do not post or visit or view pornographic material, strong violent content, etc" and then you say "accept" but go look up porn, are you going to say "It was my right to!" Sorry but no... If You want to use XBL then you have to agree to these terms, I mean... you've been using it before this, right? So you've already agreed to the other terms, or are you telling me you never read them...?Slow_Show

The difference is those networks are generally free and are pure services: you can't have any expectations of rights for something you're being given free of charge, and there's no harm to walking away if you disagree. With XBL however, you've likely spent hundreds of dollars on hardware, hundreds of dollars on games, potentially hundreds of dollars on DLC and other XBL content and slapped down $50 for a year of Gold, all of which would have been purchased based on the rights laid out in the old ToU. For MS to not offer compensation or a way to be grandfathered in falls somewhere between unbelievably dickish and illegal.

No, you pay for a service, you are using their servers, man power, etc, and so you have their rules that must be followed. GS has a ToU, WoW has a ToU, OnLive has a ToU, the 3DS has a ToU to access and use their online features, and so forth.

Free or paid doesn't give you anymore right, you actually don't even own the games you play, did you know that? You bought the rights to play that licensed game, but in actuality, you don't legally own the game, did you know that? You can't copy it, sell it, distribute it, it's actually technically illegal to rent the game too (for a price.) All you have it the key to a rental car, but you don't own the car, and the keys can be taken away from you if they please. (Like removing online functionality, closing servers, or stopping you from playing the game if they so wanted to.)

It doesn't matter how you try and paint it, you can spend hundreds of dollars/points/etc on their service, but you still abide by their rules. Do people actually even bother to reads the ToUs? You never own the content you buy, if you buy something from XBL, it doesn't transfer over to PC, Wii, or PS3 or anywhere. It's actually a liscense to use said content on that system, that's it. That stuff can be removed from your account, it can have a time or useage limit, etc.

People who want to sue MS I feel are going to sue them for something stupid. Unless they start distributing, selling, and throwing your sensitive information out there for people to abuse and use, THEN you can attack them. That's actually breaking the law, and no ToU can protect them from that. However, if something like XBL goes down, has maintenance, or maybe even gets hacked like Sony's service, that's not something someone should sue them for.

No, you pay for a service, you are using their servers, man power, etc, and so you have their rules that must be followed. GS has a ToU, WoW has a ToU, OnLive has a ToU, the 3DS has a ToU to access and use their online features, and so forth.

Free or paid doesn't give you anymore right, you actually don't even own the games you play, did you know that? You bought the rights to play that licensed game, but in actuality, you don't legally own the game, did you know that? You can't copy it, sell it, distribute it, it's actually technically illegal to rent the game too (for a price.) All you have it the key to a rental car, but you don't own the car, and the keys can be taken away from you if they please. (Like removing online functionality, closing servers, or stopping you from playing the game if they so wanted to.)

It doesn't matter how you try and paint it, you can spend hundreds of dollars/points/etc on their service, but you still abide by their rules. Do people actually even bother to reads the ToUs? You never own the content you buy, if you buy something from XBL, it doesn't transfer over to PC, Wii, or PS3 or anywhere. It's actually a liscense to use said content on that system, that's it. That stuff can be removed from your account, it can have a time or useage limit, etc.

People who want to sue MS I feel are going to sue them for something stupid. Unless they start distributing, selling, and throwing your sensitive information out there for people to abuse and use, THEN you can attack them. That's actually breaking the law, and no ToU can protect them from that. However, if something like XBL goes down, has maintenance, or maybe even gets hacked like Sony's service, that's not something someone should sue them for.

yoshi_64

You do own the games you buy on consoles as they're covered by the first sale doctrine (which means you can do pretty much whatever you want with them so long as you don't infringe on the copyright; if they really were licensed, the publishers would've sued Gamestop into oblivion years ago). It's only PC and downloaded games/DLC that are licensed (and even then, they're arguably only licensed inasmuch as no one has ever really challenged the license vs. sale thing in court).

Just because someone puts something in a contract doesn't make it legal or binding. Case in point, these new arbitration clauses: I'm happy to agree to them because they're not legal here in Ontario. Admittedly content purchased through XBL (excluding subscriptions, since it's hard to imagine what possible legal standing MS would have to change their ToU and still charge the full subscription cost for those who do not agree to it) would be on lesser standing than the hardware and physical copies of games, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a f*ck-ton of hardware and games that are purchased based on the old ToU.

I have no idea what your point is here: if people are suing MS for spurious reasons surely a multi-billion dollar corporation based around a license to print money (ie Windows+Office) has the legal resources to fight them and have the case tossed out, and probably even collect legal fees from the plantiff for bringing such as spurious case to court. And yes, the new ToU can protect them when actually breaking the law: instead of being able to levy a multi-million dollar c.lass-action lawsuit (ie something capable of acting as a real deterrent) everyone affected would have to go through arbitration on their own.

For example, let's say MS is caught selling personal information to advertisers without saying so in the ToU, and the settlement per user works out to $25 and affects a total of 10 million users. What do you think those 10 million users are more likely to do for $25: file a single-form claim for a c.lass-action lawsuit (which I'm 99% sure you can do online), or jump through the hoops of the arbitration process? Hint: it's the first one, because no one in their right mind is going to waste that type of time for $25. That's the value of these arbitration clauses to corporations: it drastically reduces the risk of having to pay big settlements, which effectively makes it much easier for them to break the law.

[QUOTE="lunatic0495"]

[QUOTE="yoshi_64"]So we're saying that if we don't like what they tell us we can and can't do in order to use their online service, it's bad...? How is this any different from what any other company does? Log onto a private network and use their internet, via school, library, etc, and it says "Do not post or visit or view pornographic material, strong violent content, etc" and then you say "accept" but go look up porn, are you going to say "It was my right to!" Sorry but no... If You want to use XBL then you have to agree to these terms, I mean... you've been using it before this, right? So you've already agreed to the other terms, or are you telling me you never read them...?vashkey

Exactly what I said like 4 pages back. I'm not understanding the logic against it :?

Ha, don't let my post count fool you. I have been here for 6 years :)

This is comparable to going to the theater to see a movie. You buy a ticket to get in, popcorn, soda...whatever. The theater has its own set of rules that every patron must abide by. If you act up or are loud and obnoxious during the movie they have every right to kick you out with no refund. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean your above any rules or "terms of service" that are set.

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="lunatic0495"]

Exactly what I said like 4 pages back. I'm not understanding the logic against it :?

lunatic0495

Ha, don't let my post count fool you. I have been here for 6 years :)

This is comparable to going to the theater to see a movie. You buy a ticket to get in, popcorn, soda...whatever. The theater has its own set of rules that every patron must abide by. If you act up or are loud and obnoxious during the movie they have every right to kick you out with no refund. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean your above any rules or "terms of service" that are set.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

they do it because it is way too easy to sue, and people DO go around just to sue companys for money, blame the customer not the company

TwoFace-BS

And thats the point of the new TOU,MS dont want to pay out thousands of dollars to lawyers so they dont have to pay $5 to a consumer

This still isnt a big deal.but Im beginning to get annoyed with kotaku scare mongering for no apparent reason

And you didn't answer my question in that other thread:
So you would suggest what to these people?

I see I've misinterpeted something quite significant. Thought this was just about clas actions, but it appears to incorporate lawsuits flatout, with abritration being the sole mean of solving a dispute. Which is in no way good for consumers, sounds directly terrible in fact, and good for a business in various ways. So I'm now further confused by your stance on this matter.

Hell, according to some, what EA is doing here is a-ok. I don't even know what to say to people like that.

You'll live.

Ha, don't let my post count fool you. I have been here for 6 years :)

This is comparable to going to the theater to see a movie. You buy a ticket to get in, popcorn, soda...whatever. The theater has its own set of rules that every patron must abide by. One of these rules is: We may at our sole discretion take away your ticket, popcorn, soda, kick you out and never allow you back in. Another rule goes: You can not sue us.

If you do not follow these rules they have every right to kick you out with no refund for purchased items. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean you're above any rules or "terms of service" that are set.

lunatic0495

Fixed.

tell me about it and since my console has a parent e-mail (dont ask made the email when i was 7) which got hacked i cant use my 4 year old account online anymore! THANKS A BUNCH MICROSOFT!!

^Yup, apologists everywhere. Can't believe people defend these faceless coorporations.

McStrongfast

Simple,Im 100% in agreement with you on EA,They should not be able to get away with that

I know what abritration is,and I personally think its a better solution for all parties then Class Actions