There seems to be alot of people who react to things they don't like in game by threatening a lawsuit with Cryptic.When did we ,as a society decide everyone needs to be sued all the time for everything you don't like in the World?Do you know how silly you look when you threaten to sue a game developer becuase the phaser is the wrong color,or the game didn't come out the way you want it,or God forbid,the server is down for a bit.
We have really sunk to new lows when things like this happen.Here is an example of some silly things that most likely came about due to a lawsuit.My wife was eating a tin of smoked oysters and on the side of the tin I noticed it said"warning,product may contain oysters"I was like WTF.You know someone,somewhere sued this oyster company and they had to put that label on the can.Next thing ,all video game companies will need to put somewhere on the EULA that "servers may come down for maintenance from time to time at the companies discretion"Wait,they already say that.Grow up people and stop calling a lawyer everytime you get a percieved wrong in your life.Rant over.
That oyster thing's probably from the law requiring that allergens have to be stated on the label. It's actually in the EULA somewhere that Crytic reserves the right to deny service at any time, which covers downtime. No one just bothers to read it.
Edit: Bingo., found it:
VII. Limitation of Liability
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS PARTIES ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY ACT OR FAILURE TO ACT BY THEM OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING CONDUCT, COMMUNICATION OR CONTENT ON THE SERVICES OR USE OF THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS SITES, SERVICES OR SOFTWARE. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH CRYPTIC STUDIOS IS TO STOP USING THE SERVICE, AND TO CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT(S). IN NO CASE SHALL THE LIABILITY OF THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS PARTIES TO YOU EXCEED THE AMOUNT THAT YOU PAID TO CRYPTIC STUDIOS OR ITS DESIGNEES DURING THE PRIOR ONE (1) MONTH PERIOD FOR THE APPLICABLE SERVICES GIVING RISE TO ANY SUCH LIABILITY. IN NO CASE SHALL THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS PARTIES BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS SITES, SERVICES AND SOFTWARE, THE INTERNET OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM RELATED IN ANY WAY TO YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES OR INTERACTIONS WITH CRYPTIC STUDIOS. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, THE LIABILITY OF CRYPTIC STUDIOS AND THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS PARTIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. CRYPTIC STUDIOS DOES NOT ENDORSE, WARRANT OR GUARANTEE ANY THIRD-PARTY PRODUCT OR SERVICE OFFERED THROUGH THE CRYPTIC STUDIOS SITES AND WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO OR IN ANY WAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN YOU AND THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.
Mmhmm, I have to say I hear it far too much as well. Both online and in "the real world", it really is disheartening. Everything also seems to be about instan tgratification. If people don't get exactly what they want, when they want it - well it's obviously some kind of personal affront to them. Not enough mayo in your chicken burger? It must be an infringement of your human rights....
Funny thing is, from my experience, most people that start to declare their own rights, usually have no clue as to what they are. They just have their own version of it to suit their current situation.
(All those that worked in retail or sales know what I'm talkin about)
I always wish, someone would make his claim true and actually really SUE the big bad MMO developer. That way, we could link forever to some cool story how the small little Player got smashed in court for his, uh, "self-confidence".
There seems to be alot of people who react to things they don't like in game by threatening a lawsuit with Cryptic.When did we ,as a society decide everyone needs to be sued all the time for everything you don't like in the World?Do you know how silly you look when you threaten to sue a game developer becuase the phaser is the wrong color,or the game didn't come out the way you want it,or God forbid,the server is down for a bit.
We have really sunk to new lows when things like this happen.Here is an example of some silly things that most likely came about due to a lawsuit.My wife was eating a tin of smoked oysters and on the side of the tin I noticed it said"warning,product may contain oysters"I was like WTF.You know someone,somewhere sued this oyster company and they had to put that label on the can.Next thing ,all video game companies will need to put somewhere on the EULA that "servers may come down for maintenance from time to time at the companies discretion"Wait,they already say that.Grow up people and stop calling a lawyer everytime you get a percieved wrong in your life.Rant over.
Sadly, a step backwards for humanity, it likely became largely OK to scream lawsuit shortly after that guy dropped hot coffee in his lap at McDonald's, he sued for injury and won, all because the stupid cup didn't state it was HOT.
I mean we live in a day and age where people call 911 now just because they didn't get a burger exactly the way they wanted to at burger king.
I agree that gaming company's need to start being held responsible for what they release but this isn't a game that has fallen short of what they promised to deliver. Others on the other hand should have been sued.
That oyster thing's probably from the law requiring that allergens have to be stated on the label. It's actually in the EULA somewhere that Crytic reserves the right to deny service at any time, which covers downtime. No one just bothers to read it.
Edit: Bingo., found it:
If one thing has been proven already. Then it's that EULA's don't hold up in court.
The EULA is just there to scare the player. Nothing more.
Sadly, a step backwards for humanity, it likely became largely OK to scream lawsuit shortly after that guy dropped hot coffee in his lap at McDonald's, he sued for injury and won, all because the stupid cup didn't state it was HOT.
how sad is that?
or that mythical law suit of the woman driving the RV, turned on Cruise Control, went back to make a cup of coffee (or something) and the RV obviously crashed. Won the case against the RV company because they didn't say cruise control isn't autopilot. Or something to that effect. Could be a myth though.
I actually once had a Lawyer, who had his own law-practice, threaten me with a lawsuit. So I had to have another lawyer who owed me a favor deal with the first lawyer and we all parted amicably.
Before you dismiss lawsuit threats, please remember, sometimes venting is the only option left to people who have their blood pressure so high their heads would explode were it not for the easy and convenient threat of a lawsuit! :rolleyes:;)
I always wish, someone would make his claim true and actually really SUE the big bad MMO developer. That way, we could link forever to some cool story how the small little Player got smashed in court for his, uh, "self-confidence".
Do companies like Sony count?
Couple of months ago, some joker got permabanned from PSN for trolling, insulting players and language. He tried suing Sony - the case got thrown out of court. Said joker's not done, though - he's appealing and adding charges.
Pretty LOLworthy, if you ask me. The guy clearly violated the EULA, which the judge treated as a contract and didn't let the frivolous laysuit get to trial.
That's actually one of the few times that I agreed with the lawsuit.
I used to work in a cafe and it's stupid to serve coffee that hot as it's too hot to even hold normally without extra napkins around the paper cup or whatever. Doesn't help McDonald's case that they've received similar complaints in the past and they just ignored them even after accepting the fact that they are a burn hazard. Sure, she was dumb for putting the cup between her legs, but it wouldn't have been any different if someone just bumped into her and made her spill it on herself.
Did you happen to read the whole article? To suffer 3rd degree burns from a hot water-based liquid would mean that the coffee was really beyond too hot to drink.
I hate defending this kind of thing, but that was really excessively hot coffee.
haha yep it's the ultimate 'gotta prove x person wrong' unless you want to take the law into your own hands. would be awesome to be a lawyer in a society where folks sue at the drop of a hat cuz you'd always have clients
If one thing has been proven already. Then it's that EULA's don't hold up in court.
The EULA is just there to scare the player. Nothing more.
People keep saying this - but none of them have ever actually managed to cite the case where it was proven. Maybe you can be the first and actually point me at the case law, because so far it's just something that people who don't like obeying the EULA keep spouting on forums.
Honestly, you're just blowing out of proportion their blwoing things out of proportion. I doubt any of them are seriously intending to sue, they're just hoping to goad Cryptic's overtaxed support department to prioritize them first.
If one thing has been proven already. Then it's that EULA's don't hold up in court.
The EULA is just there to scare the player. Nothing more.
EULAs don't normally hold up in court because people aren't 'forced' to read it and that they're filled with obfuscating words designed to annoy people into not reading them.
In cases where the TOS was relatively short, worded in laymans terms, and had to be scrolled all the way down before the accept button appeared/wasn't grayed out, then they were honored in court as far as I know. Cryptic should do the latter during the sign-up process, as their EULA's pretty straightforward and short.
People keep saying this - but none of them have ever actually managed to cite the case where it was proven. Maybe you can be the first and actually point me at the case law, because so far it's just something that people who don't like obeying the EULA keep spouting on forums.
It's been disproven, too - twice.
First one is the Blizzard/Vivendi vs. MDM suit - MDM made a bot to play WoW and sold it. Blizzard stepped in, and won the case on both technical and EULA grounds.
Second was that joker who sued Sony over being permabanned from PSN. His offense? Trolling, insulting others, and swearing - all EULA violations. The case was thrown out by the officiating judge.
or that mythical law suit of the woman driving the RV, turned on Cruise Control, went back to make a cup of coffee (or something) and the RV obviously crashed. Won the case against the RV company because they didn't say cruise control isn't autopilot. Or something to that effect. Could be a myth though.
Same site also talks about the McDonald's case, which isn't anywhere near as cut and dried as most people seem to think. Up to and including how much she was awarded. A jury awarded her $2.9 million, the judge reduced that to $640,000, and then she settled out of court for an undisclosed amount to avoid appeals. She had initially just asked McDonald's for $20,000 to cover medial expenses. They offered her $800.
Couple of months ago, some joker got permabanned from PSN for trolling, insulting players and language. He tried suing Sony - the case got thrown out of court. Said joker's not done, though - he's appealing and adding charges.
Pretty LOLworthy, if you ask me. The guy clearly violated the EULA, which the judge treated as a contract and didn't let the frivolous laysuit get to trial.
The only problem with suing because the coffee was too hot, someone will sue because the coffee was to cold and they paid for a hot cup of coffee. People will sue for anything if given the chance. I t will take someone in the court system to start fining people who bring a frivolous case to court. Unfortunately they would most likely sue the judge for infringing on their rights.
Comments
Edit: Bingo., found it:
You going to hit me, aren't you?
No way man, this is the 90s. I'm just going to sue you!
We all know they're not really gonna do it. THEY know they're not really gonna do it.
Who are they trying to kid?
-np
lol @ armchair lawyers who probably have trouble passing 5th grade English nevermind the bar...:rolleyes:
(All those that worked in retail or sales know what I'm talkin about)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Sadly, a step backwards for humanity, it likely became largely OK to scream lawsuit shortly after that guy dropped hot coffee in his lap at McDonald's, he sued for injury and won, all because the stupid cup didn't state it was HOT.
I mean we live in a day and age where people call 911 now just because they didn't get a burger exactly the way they wanted to at burger king.
how sad is that?
If one thing has been proven already. Then it's that EULA's don't hold up in court.
The EULA is just there to scare the player. Nothing more.
or that mythical law suit of the woman driving the RV, turned on Cruise Control, went back to make a cup of coffee (or something) and the RV obviously crashed. Won the case against the RV company because they didn't say cruise control isn't autopilot. Or something to that effect. Could be a myth though.
Before you dismiss lawsuit threats, please remember, sometimes venting is the only option left to people who have their blood pressure so high their heads would explode were it not for the easy and convenient threat of a lawsuit! :rolleyes:;)
Do companies like Sony count?
Couple of months ago, some joker got permabanned from PSN for trolling, insulting players and language. He tried suing Sony - the case got thrown out of court. Said joker's not done, though - he's appealing and adding charges.
Pretty LOLworthy, if you ask me. The guy clearly violated the EULA, which the judge treated as a contract and didn't let the frivolous laysuit get to trial.
That's actually one of the few times that I agreed with the lawsuit.
I used to work in a cafe and it's stupid to serve coffee that hot as it's too hot to even hold normally without extra napkins around the paper cup or whatever. Doesn't help McDonald's case that they've received similar complaints in the past and they just ignored them even after accepting the fact that they are a burn hazard. Sure, she was dumb for putting the cup between her legs, but it wouldn't have been any different if someone just bumped into her and made her spill it on herself.
Point still stands on everything else though.
Did you happen to read the whole article? To suffer 3rd degree burns from a hot water-based liquid would mean that the coffee was really beyond too hot to drink.
I hate defending this kind of thing, but that was really excessively hot coffee.
People keep saying this - but none of them have ever actually managed to cite the case where it was proven. Maybe you can be the first and actually point me at the case law, because so far it's just something that people who don't like obeying the EULA keep spouting on forums.
Look up that joker that tried suing Sony for being permabanned from PSN.
The reason? Trolling, insulting others, and cussing - all violations of the EULA.
It stood up in court - the judge threw the lawsuit out.
Said joker's now appealing, and attempting to add more charges.
EULAs don't normally hold up in court because people aren't 'forced' to read it and that they're filled with obfuscating words designed to annoy people into not reading them.
In cases where the TOS was relatively short, worded in laymans terms, and had to be scrolled all the way down before the accept button appeared/wasn't grayed out, then they were honored in court as far as I know. Cryptic should do the latter during the sign-up process, as their EULA's pretty straightforward and short.
It's been disproven, too - twice.
First one is the Blizzard/Vivendi vs. MDM suit - MDM made a bot to play WoW and sold it. Blizzard stepped in, and won the case on both technical and EULA grounds.
Second was that joker who sued Sony over being permabanned from PSN. His offense? Trolling, insulting others, and swearing - all EULA violations. The case was thrown out by the officiating judge.
It is indeed.
http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html
Same site also talks about the McDonald's case, which isn't anywhere near as cut and dried as most people seem to think. Up to and including how much she was awarded. A jury awarded her $2.9 million, the judge reduced that to $640,000, and then she settled out of court for an undisclosed amount to avoid appeals. She had initially just asked McDonald's for $20,000 to cover medial expenses. They offered her $800.
Yeah, and coffee cups actually have to tell you that coffee is hot. Like, duh.
:cool:
you know what the world is coming to...
BRAWNDO! IT HAS ELECTROLYTES!
Hehe. Yeah, stuff like that. Love it.
If you got the money, or you're going after deep pockets, you can find a lawyer who will do your bidding.
Just my 2.5 cents as I finish e-filling payroll taxes.
LOL
It's what plants crave.
:cool: