Gamer sues Punkbuster makers

by **MMmmGood** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:14 pm

That is the thing. You are NOT being forced to install it. Simply click no. Period. Done.

EAs public servers are half and half.

This is what I posted on DSL Reports:

I 'skimmed' through the 21 pages on this thread, but thought I would chime in my opinion. I work for a GSP ( game server provider ) and run just over 130 BF1942 servers.

Here is my point of view on this:

1. When you install 1.6 you agree to PB EULA, which you stated you did.

2. PB is OPTIONAL software. You can choose not to install it.

3. You have no grounds to sue, and can claim no damages. The claim that your game is not 100% functional is not true. It was 100% functional at the time of purchase. You can play on any server you wants that is not PB enabled.

Taken from the PB EULA:

LICENSOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE OPERATION OF PUNKBUSTER SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE OR THAT IT WILL MEET LICENSEE'S SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OR DESIRES. LICENSEE AGREES THAT NEITHER EVEN BALANCE, INC., ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, LICENSORS, BUSINESS PARTNERS, SUCCESSORS NOR ASSIGNS SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM WHATSOEVER INVOLVING PUNKBUSTER SOFTWARE IN ANY WAY. FURTHERMORE, SHOULD ANY VERSION OF PUNKBUSTER SOFTWARE, INCLUDING FUTURE VERSIONS, PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY WAY, LICENSEE ASSUMES THE ENTIRE COST, IF ANY, OF LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY TYPE AND TO ANY DEGREE. THIS WARRANTY DISCLAIMER SHALL SURVIVE TERMINATION OF THE LICENSE OF PUNKBUSTER SOFTWARE BY LICENSEE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LICENSE IS TERMINATED BY EVENBALANCE, INC. OR LICENSEE.

The case will be thrown out. Good waste of money.

I dont care if you reply or not, or if you even read this, I just wanted to post my opinion.

He will lose in court, period.

by **LeVar Burton** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:18 pm

I hear that. All I was saying was if all EA servers used PB, then there could be an argument. But I think they are half and half because EA knew this.

by **CrazyBri** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:19 pm

Mmgood the guy is too blinded by the oh so common lawsuit lust that he'll probably never even take your reply seriously even though it's the truth.

by **MMmmGood** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:20 pm

Someone else replied to my post:

They really don't need to change the way the do things for you or for anyone else. They can decide on their own if they should make changes. Their system has been working for MOST people. There are some people who unfortunately run into problems with PB, but NOTHING is perfect.

If we were to gather information regarding people who have problems with PB versus those that do not, I'm pretty sure that A LOT more people are satisfied with EB and PB than people who are dissatisfied. People who haven't purchased their games or cheat DO NOT count.

YOU, Quibbly, just happens to be one of the unfortunate ones who could have easily avoided this whole ordeal by simply accepting the offered cdkey. There is no problem with the EULA. If you don't find the EULA acceptable, simple don't use the product. I don't understand why people are making this more difficult that it should be.

If you were signing up for an ISP, and didn't accept their T&C because you would have to pay a start-up fee, would you still try establishing service? Probably not. Mostly likely, you would take your business elsewhere. But what you're doing with EB is similar to what an idiot would do to the ISP: Sue them because they don't feel that the start-up fee is justified and try to make them change that. It doesn't work that way. If you don't like the way the company runs their business, then go elsewhere.

A 33 year-old man with COMMON sense would know this. It's not a matter of principle. It's a matter of "the situation could have been avoided" had you handled the issue the MORE INTELLIGENT way.

Don't like the EULA? Don't use the product. You CAN still play the game and there are many servers that do not have PB enabled.

One last thing. If software companies DID NOT offer to replace cdkeys as a result of events like this, then yes, I would want to see proof as to why the key was banned. I wouldn't want to go out and buy a new game just so that I could get online to play, only to get banned again. I would fight for my rights as a paying customer. HOWEVER, this is NOT the case. Software vendors are willing to replace keys for FREE, granted that you are able to supply evidence that you paid for the game. THUS, OBTAINING PROOF OF CHEATING will not solve ANYTHING. You're going to have to obtain a new cdkey, REGARDLESS.

AGAIN... COMMON SENSE.

Shit like this pisses me off. EA offered him a new key and like a moron, he refused it.

by **RCinator** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:21 pm

Originally posted by MMmmGood
This guy is a fucking MORON.

1. When you install 1.6 you agree to PB EULA, which he stated he did.

2. PB is OPTIONAL software. You can choose not to install it.

3. He has no grounds to sue, and can claim no damages. The claim that his game is not 100% functional is not true. It was 100% functional at the time of purchase. He can play on any server he wants that is not PB enabled.

He will lose in court, period.

Whlie the guy may indeed be a moron (time will tell), EULA is exceedingly difficult to enforce, and has been overturned countless times in court cases. They're too strict, and courts constantly favor the consumer in these cases. EULA does little to protect the software developer in the end.

Here's a famous example from a couple years ago (Adobe v. Softman):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg15808.html

by **MMmmGood** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:22 pm

Regardless, EA offered him a new key and he turned it down.

by **RCinator** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:25 pm

Don't get me wrong, were it me, I'd have taken the new key and been on my way. It's not worth my time.

by **LeVar Burton** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:27 pm

I was wondering how supreme the EULAs are. Just from the portion that MMmmgood pasted, it seems like they just made a blanket statement that they are not responsible for any screwup.

by **CrazyBri** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:31 pm

Originally posted by RCinator
Whlie the guy may indeed be a moron (time will tell), EULA is exceedingly difficult to enforce, and has been overturned countless times in court cases. They're too strict, and courts constantly favor the consumer in these cases. EULA does little to protect the software developer in the end.

Here's a famous example from a couple years ago (Adobe v. Softman):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg15808.html

Regardless of the EULA he can still play on punkbuster disabled servers online and singleplayer. Because of the fact that punkbuster is an optional thing and EA is not obligated to provide online servers for the public...how is he going to even have a chance to win this case and claim damages? Those cases you linked to don't change my opinion on the time and money this guy will be wasting.

Maybe he can claim mental harm for being falsely accused of cheating I don't know.

*edit* ps harry you still owe me 3k

by **RCinator** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:33 pm

Originally posted by CrazyBri
Regardless of the EULA he can still play on punkbuster disabled servers online and singleplayer. Because of the fact that punkbuster is an optional thing and EA is not obligated to provide online servers for the public...how is he going to even have a chance to win this case and claim damages? Those cases you linked to don't change my opinion on the time and money this guy will be wasting.

Maybe he can claim mental harm for being falsely accused of cheating I don't know.

Oh, I agree it's a horrible waste of time . . . I just think EULA is silly.

by **LeVar Burton** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:34 pm

Are you sure EA doesn't have to provide servers?

by **RCinator** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:35 pm

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I was wondering how supreme the EULAs are. Just from the portion that MMmmgood pasted, it seems like they just made a blanket statement that they are not responsible for any screwup.

It is specifically those clauses in EULAs that invalidate them. You can't really sign away your right to sue in most cases . . . and even when you can, it usually involves a more official process than clicking the "Next" button. At the very least, ink and paper are brought into the transaction.

by **CrazyBri** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:36 pm

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
Are you sure EA doesn't have to provide servers?

im checking that right now. Worst case scenario would be if he bought the game 90 or less days ago.

Edit** couldn't find the info (maybe I'm overlooking it ) but I'd say I'm fairly confident ea/dice are only obligated to supporting the online aspect of the game andare not obligated to providing free servers for the public to play on(ie EA bf1942 servers)

by **Colonel Ingus** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:46 pm

Why EULA's can and have been challenged before, this guy has nothing, nada, zip. They have already offered him free replacement of his product as if it were defective, Which it is NOT.

And even if you could make some kind of specious arguement that EA requires him to use PB on their servers there is no way you could prove that EA forces him to use EA servers. Every single one of us is proof you don't have too. Hell I haven't even looked at EA servers since I found ECGN. I just counted 17 that ECGN runs/supports. Thats not even including the Viet Nam ones

I think dude is a haxor and got busted.

by **Fat Bastard** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:49 pm

He got BUSTED and got caught. Its that simple. If he wasn't cheating he would take the new cd key and be on with it.

Gamer sues Punkbuster makers

Who is online