Slashdot Mirror
Modded Xbox Bans Prompt EFF Warning About Terms of Service
Last month we discussed news that Microsoft had banned hundreds of thousands of Xbox users for using modified consoles. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has now pointed to this round of bans as a prime example of the power given to providers of online services through 'Terms of Service' and other usage agreements.
"No matter how much we rely on them to get on with our everyday lives, access to online services — like email, social networking sites, and (wait for it) online gaming — can never be guaranteed. ... he who writes the TOS makes the rules, and when it comes to enforcing them, the service provider often behaves as though it is also the judge, jury and executioner. ... While the mass ban provides a useful illustration of their danger, these terms can be found in nearly all TOS agreements for all kinds of services. There have been virtually no legal challenges to these kinds of arbitrary termination clauses, but we imagine this will be a growth area for lawyers."
Any place someone feels (correctly or incorrectly) they've been treated wrongly, it is a place for lawyers to grow and make money.
Microsoft's network, Microsoft's rules. They're 100% in the right for banning modded consoles. Basically you can play your pirated games or you can play on Live, but not both with the same console. Now what angers me is how they'll send out replacement consoles for warranty repairs that are already banned from Live, and tell the recipient that they must have a modded console and refuse them any recourse. What also angers me is how it would be easily within the law to ban for almost ANY reason, leaving the user with little to no recourse.
I applaud Microsoft's banning of modded consoles, but condemn Terms of Service in general because they're 99.999% in the favor of the writer. I mean, the company.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Rights? What "rights" do you have here aside from choosing whether or not to give a company money? Your basic human rights aren't being violated here, and I don't see anything illegal happening with respect to a company's right to set terms of service for the use of their network.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Okay, seriously. They own and operate their network. Let's reverse this: what gives you the right to tell them how to operate it?
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I think Microsoft is being aggressive in it's strategy. Warnings, even many warnings and second chances, third chances, etc should be utilized before doing something irreversible like this (also an appeals process would be in order). It certainly is their right to ban people from their network based on a written policy but psychologically speaking they are angering a great many customers. By taking such extreme action, they are encouraging better hacks and workarounds in the future. Plenty of computer software is much more graceful and works well on a positive reinforcement encouragement system. Even Microsoft Windows and Office handle these types of situations much better. There will always be piracy but it should be discouraged and not challenged for the truly best end results. A lot less music is pirated now simply by offering it for sale in MP3 form and encouraging people to do the right thing.
I don't mean to sound like I'm defending Microsoft, but...
If you enter into any contract, you have to abide by the rules. There's NOTHING new here. Online service, game service (like Xbox Live), Phone service... even a lawn mowing service has terms to its contract.
Guess what kids? Your actions have consequences. You should have the maturity to own up to those consequences.
Contracts (and contract law) aren't anything remotely new. They've been thought out by many a great thinker for millennia. Calling contract law a "growth market" is about as far from the truth as it gets. Contracts are one of the oldest, most hashed-out, and most concrete aspects of law in any society. The entire point of contract law is to avoid lawsuits, specifically because there is so little wiggle room if both parties agree to the contract.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I have no problems with what they did; but I question their logic. Those consoles that are banned from Live for being "modded" can still obviously play pirated games. What they *can't* do is go on live and among other things purchase things. So while they will undoubtedly sell some more consoles (Craigslist and eBay are full of banned consoles) and probably some more games - I don't really see this as doing much to stop piracy - I only see it stopping any legit spending from those consoles.
Seems to me that there must've been a better way to handle this; but that's just me.
That doesn't pass for justification. You paid them money in exchange for access to their network according to their terms of service. If you want the right to dictate how they operate their company, you'll need to be a shareholder (minimal influence unless you've got a hell of a lot of shares), on the board of directors, or a C-level employee.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Nothing gives me the right to tell you what to do with that gun. If you choose to do something illegal with it the courts will deal with you.
That's a terrible strawman, by the way. It doesn't even make sense as a counter-argument, and almost agrees with my point.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Exactly.
And it's not like you don't have the choice to just connect your XBox 360 to another service provider, right?
Right?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Yeah, and they also can't install games to the hard drive, nor move accounts back and forth from a banned system to a non-banned system from what I understand. So yes there is a loss of functionality as well.
When I installed it, it popped up an EULA that stated that the company reserved the right to modify the agreement from time to time (changes to be posted to their website) and that my continued use of the software 30 days after these changes constitutes my acceptance of said changes.
I should mention, this is a retail boxed version of a game that doesn't require any online service to run.
Then there's Windows 7. Bought the upgrade to put a legit copy on a new system. But apparently, and this was stated nowhere online at the time of purchase (including Microsoft's site, and I checked thoroughly), this upgrade is only properly licensed if I put it on the computer that had the OEM version of XP on it. Impossible, as its motherboard died, and even the OEM XP had no mention on its packaging or on the website that it would only be valid on the first system it was installed on (as indicated by the motherboard in said computer, even if the motherboard needs replacement).
You really are treated worse than a pirate when you pay for your software. You can't even properly lend or swap games with friends anymore, even on consoles like the Xbox 360 because of DLC.
In deference to your request, I shall call you Sally instead.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
"You can't even properly lend or swap games with friends anymore"
"Yep. This is why I pirate MS products, buy Apple products"
Logic fail.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you really, really, really care THAT DAMN MUCH about modding your XBox, you'd buy 2 -- one for online play on XBL, the other for souped-up media center purposes. Can't afford a second XBox? Then maybe modding and/or XBL isn't for you.
A modded XBox increases the probability the end user has a cheat enabled to give you an unfair advantage in an online competitive game. I applaud any service that wants to preserve purity in a competitive arena. It's just like every major competitive sport having regulations over the specifications of all equipment used in all games.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
Anecdotal, of course, but I've seen a lot gaming PCs where one part or another has failed (in one case, the power supply went, taking with it the mobo, CPU, and video card - any one of which cost a good chunk as much as an Xbox 360).
In fact, as somebody who got his first gaming console after the release of the Xbox's Jasper chipset (I gamed on PC long before that), neither I nor anybody I know has had a RROD with the new chipset (and only one person in that time with an older one). Don't get me wrong, the first versions undeniably had problems and it's fair to blame MS for them back then, but to suggest (as your post does) that RROD is still substantially more likely than a gaming PC part failure is simply bullshit. Blame a company for its past errors, but don't pretend not to see when they learn from those mistakes.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
My console was banned for being modded. The thing is, it was modded because the DVD drive died and I replaced it... the only way I could do this "legitimately" was to buy a whole new console, since MS claimed it was no longer under warranty. I wasn't about to spend $250 or whatever it was at the time (this was a couple years ago) to buy a whole new console when I could buy a new drive online for less than $60.
So I had a modded console... I played exactly 2 games that entire time, Rock Band and Rock Band 2. The original of Rock Band worked perfectly and when Rock Band 2 came out, I purchased it... well the original had trouble playing in the console, so I used a burned copy, which ironically played fine. During that time, I purchased nearly 100 songs for RB and RB2 and maintained a Live Gold subscription. My gamer profile confirms that I haven't played any other games than RB and RB2 since I replaced the drive.
So my console is banned. I will cancel my Live Gold account ($50+ a year or something) and I will no longer be able to purchase songs for RB2 or future RB games that come out. So by banning me, they've lost a continual revenue stream that has exceeded the purchase price of a console. Sure, they already have my money for the RB2 songs I bought, but they aren't able to get more, even if I wanted to pay them money.
What kind of stupid idea is this? Unilaterally cut off your customers who pay you money regularly and prevent them from being able to pay you any more money. Wow. What a brilliant business move.
"we have dectected you have a modded consoles, if you do not travel back in time to prevent yourself from modding your console, you will be banned."
XBoxLive is Microsoft's private network. Only Microsoft has a right to use it. For everyone else, the use is XBoxLive is a privilege.
Microsoft owns it. Microsoft runs it. Microsoft sets the rules. Microsoft says the service is for unmodified XBox systems and if you have a modified XBox, you can't use the service.
XBoxLive is a service and Microsoft does not have to provide the service to anyone it doesn't want to provide it to as long as it isn't discriminatory under the law.
The EFF needs to shut the fuck up until it dig it's collective head out of it's collective ass.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You can restore your banned console to its pre-banned state if you are handy with a soldering iron and have an old printer cable. Your console is still banned, but your NAND will be at its prior state so you can transfer saves, install to HDD, and use MCE. Just go to xboxscene.com and read about it.
The partition has an obfuscated copy of the drive's serial number. Data on drive doesn't match drive itself = you can be banned.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.