dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
53790
share rss forum feed


Mcrobrewer
Premium
join:2001-03-04
Trenton, NJ
reply to CylonRed

Re: Even Balance (PUNKBUSTER) Problems

LOL I am not dense...

But if that is your opinion then fine....

Go ahead a bring it to court... Please let me know when you go to court.

Thanks.

Red. You are right on the money.
--
triponthis.net
The only thing that stands between us and the animals is a really good beer

AirP1
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to CylonRed
Even though I do feel sorry for someone who is banned because of punkbuster, punkbuster shouldn't be who you're upset at. The person or persons you should be upset at is the keygen people or actually the person that generated your key and got you banned in the first place.

Your arguement of them not allowing you to play on punkbuster servers equates to someone setting you up for a crime then blaming the police for you getting convited of a crime. They didn't screw you, they just took the data they had and proceeded with that.

Is Punkbuster perfect, hell no, but it does a hell of alot more good then bad.

By the way, on a given day, how many people do you think call evenbalance and give them crap? I'm guessing it's quite a high number.

Since you dislike Punkbuster so much, just put up your own server without punkbuster... playing on a server someone else is paying for isn't a right, it's a privledge.

zmike2

join:2004-02-16
92680
reply to quibbly
THERE PUNK BUSTER C*a*k that work ON half life:D there PUNK BUSTER cheat.

AirP1
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to AirP1
By the way, Evenbalance really can't really unban you, your cdkey is probably a known CD key being passed around and it's quite possible that they have either a text file being passed around with it inside it or a cdkey gen comes up with it pretty often which I'm sure they have their hands on too.

Punkbuster could just unban you only to have the cdkey get banned by someone else using it other then yourself. It really does suck that your key got flagged, but don't be pissed off at punkbuster, be pissed off at the person(s) using your cdkey.


ravage7776

join:2000-10-27
Mississauga, ON
reply to quibbly
I actually thought this was a joke topic from the first post . But seriously, you have no case.


quibbly
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX
reply to quibbly
Actually, I have a great case. If you would take the time to read all the comments, you would see this. Stop skimming and read. Did you read the EULA? Do you have the ability to translate this? If so, you will see how EB is in the wrong. I will work on making this change.

Quibbly


Juke Box
His Word Never Fails
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Proverbs 3
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
reply to quibbly
To be honest with you.
I am all for consumer advocacy. Screw those companies that operate with negligence or arrogance. Trust me, I think my ISP falls in that category.

But in your case, I really don't believe you have much of a leg to stand on. And yes, I have read all of your post in regards to this matter on this thread.

So take your new key and continue to play cheat free games.
--
Do you listen to Tangerine Dream?

Nax1
Premium
join:2002-05-17
Longmont, CO

1 recommendation

reply to quibbly
Wow, quibbly. You're my hero. So principled. So..let me make sure I have this straight.

Your CD Key got stolen, or at least duplicated, and possibly used to cheat in a game as well. PunkBuster made some free software to make online gaming more enjoyable by banning CD keys of known cheaters from servers running their software (please forgive me if I get the details wrong as I am not that familiar with PB and how it works), and as a result of your CD key being stolen, you were banned from certain servers, but you had a new key issued by the game manufacturer and now can join in relatively cheat-free games by using PB and your new CD Key.

Now that everything is settled and your game works again (even using that dastardly, free, unprincipled anti-cheat software, you need to sue the very company who provides you the ability to enjoy your online gaming experience by providing the free software that keeps the games cheat-free. Maybe, probably not, but just MAYBE, your efforts will convince PB to stop their efforts to help provide cheat-free games, and things can go back to the way they were. More "fun" for the cheaters.

And, as an added bonus, anyone who disagrees with you in this thread is somehow "bashing" you and deserves to be insulted and "bashed" in turn. Brilliant. I'm impressed.

I'm with you. Anyone who tries to make online gaming more fun by keeping cheaters out for free DESERVES to be sued.

And if any of you disagree with me and quibbly, well, you're just idiots. Read the thread, you fools.


aberrant
Deviant One

join:2002-01-10
San Francisco, CA
reply to CylonRed
said by CylonRed:
Their EULA is no different from any other software companies EULA...

Actually, it is very different from other EULAs. Have you seen it? It basically says, "We reserve the right to access any information on your computer at any time, and also reserve the right to take screenshots at any time." I generally skim EULAs, but after downloading America's Army and seeing that, I erased the entire thing from my machine and will not play any game that requires PB.

Even Balance says PB's not spyware. Why would they say otherwise?


TheGiant
Sup

join:2001-03-28
Elizabethtown, KY
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to quibbly
said by EULA:
Licensee understands and agrees that the information that may be inspected and reported by PunkBuster software includes, but is not limited to, devices and any files residing on the hard-drive and in the memory of the computer on which PunkBuster software is installed
Did anyone read this? They can read any file on your computer and it's OK? I think not. Good luck, chop the giant down to size.
--
Maddox has come Home!


glorybox48

join:2001-02-08
Little Ferry, NJ
reply to quibbly
Not counting the actual decision to pursue a frivolous lawsuit, your worst decision is definitely blabbing about all of this in a public, archived forum.

Not only that, but stressing repeatedly that your pursuit is founded on "principle" and "pride," not on law.

Fortunately, Evenbalance's lawyers don't need any -more- evidence to get this to go down as frivolous.

I truly am sympathetic to your situation, and if I were you I'd want to slash all their throats. You are letting your pride interefere with your reason.


z28kindaguy
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Brooklyn, MD
reply to quibbly
I for one hope you win. I'm a avid hater of PB, and this goes down as another reason why. Good Luck.


Anonmouse

@aol.com
reply to glorybox48
I wouldn't post those transcripts if I were you, unless you have super memory I can safely assume that you were recording privileged conversions without the other party's consent if I were you I would consult a "GOOD" lawyer and remove the transcripts posted immediately.

Texas Penal Code § 16.02: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.

Unlawful recording of a conversation, or disclosure of its contents with reason to know of the illegal interception, is a felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas Penal Code § 12.33. A civil cause of action is expressly authorized for unlawful interception or disclosure. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002. The plaintiff may be entitled to $10,000 for each occurrence, actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held in 2000 that a television station and reporter who had been given illegally obtained tapes of telephone conversations, but who had not participated in the illegal recording, could nonetheless be held civilly liable under the federal and Texas wiretapping statutes. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000). The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court along with two other cases raising similar issues. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case but decided in one of the other cases, Bartnicki v. Vopper, that media defendants could not be held liable for publishing information of public concern that was obtained unlawfully by a source where the media were blameless in the illegal interception. Following the Bartnicki decision, the parties in the Peavy case settled out of court.

[ »www.rcfp.org/taping/states/texas ··· xas.html ]

§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who–

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when--
(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;
(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e)
(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b) to (c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

(2)

(a)
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or on officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with--

(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order or certification under this chapter.

(b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.

(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person--

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted--
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; (iii) to engage in any conduct which--
(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act; (iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter--

(i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or
(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.

(3)

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication--
(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517 of this title;
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(4)

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then--
(i) if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subsection (5), the offender shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(ii) if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, the offender shall be fined under this title.
(c) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted--
(i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or
(ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls,
is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.

(5) (a) (i) If the communication is--

(A) a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or
(B) a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent jurisdiction. (ii) In an action under this subsection--
(A) if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such person has not been found liable in a civil action under section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and
(B) if the violation of this chapter is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or such person has been found liable in any prior civil action under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine.
(b) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of such an injunction.

[ »www.cybercrime.gov/usc2511.htm ]


Theo2002

join:2002-02-28
Clermont, FL
PB are nazi wannabes. End of story.


DAlanS

join:2004-02-21
Columbia, MD

1 recommendation

reply to Nagrom Nniuq
Finally someone who knows what they are talking about...

Obviously everyone that says stop your suit or just use another cd key from EA missed the point or cares nothing about it. Quibbly purchased a product from EA that had software bundled w/ it from EB. The forty dollars that EA received allows him to play whenever he chooses. IF he has not cheated/hacked/whatever (which seems to be the case since no proof has been presented) then he has the right to play the game. Yes, he has accepted the EULA from EB but that doesn't mean that they can deny him service for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. That is the main reason for the case (if ive read correctly). EB has refused to present proof of his "hacking" and then when he tried to find out what went wrong treated him in an abusive/neglectful manner.

Unless there is a statement in EB's EULA that states clear cut that they could refuse service to anyone FOR NO REASON then EB has a case. However if there was ever a line or statement in their EULA that said this EA would have never agreed to bundle EB's software w/ the game. It would have simply cause them too much trouble. If EB had treated this case in a different manner then it could have been avoided but obviously they are not willing to take the time to help someone w/ a simple problem. This shows the caliber of EB's staff to be somewhat lacking/shady.

Whether or not he wins it is a step in the right direction for anyone being treated unfairly. You have to start somewhere and I applaud Quibbly for not taking this sitting on his ass.:D
--
Game over, FOO!


DAlanS

join:2004-02-21
Columbia, MD
reply to Nax1
Obviously you have not heard of the term Ex Post Facto...even IF EA offers him a new key after his treatment by EB it means nothing...the fact that there are other servers to play on MEAN NOTHING

The EULA is the problem and so is EB for treating their "customers" like crap.

Also, the fact that they bundle the PB program w/ future patches and force you to install it or else you cant play (something i never realized or noticed b4) voids EA's EULA for the original product.
--
Game over, FOO!

LloydDobler

join:2002-01-03
Littleton, CO
What you principled people keep failing to recognize is what is really happening.

PB is protecting THE REST OF US GAMERS from someone who hacked his key. They do have proof, and it's called 'two people tried to play from two different computers with the same key, at least one of them is illegal'.

It has nothing to do with you. Take the new key and get on with your life. Try a different game if this is such a crisis for you.

Also, if you think this lawsuit is a worthwhile endeavor on 'principle', I would suggest that you really have no principles at all. People in your own city are starving and you'd rather beg for money to feed a lawyer on a case that will accomplish precisely nothing.

You can still play the game. You can even play the game without the patches. You can play the game without punkbuster. You can protect your pc from evenbalance. They offered you another key so you can even play with the latest and greatest everything. It doesn't appear to me that they are denying you anything. You seem to think they owe you low ping or something.

It's not even EA or EB that is making you install the patch, you only need patches to play on patched servers.

And a final note: If you succeed in what you are doing you will neuter evenbalance and make life easier for cheaters. Consider the actual reality rather than the principle.

stanely

join:2003-01-04
Hopkins, MN

1 recommendation

reply to quibbly
This has to be one of the most asinine things I have recently read. Do we really need another frivolous lawsuit?

Unless I'm missing something, your taking Even Balance to court for being rude to you?

Regardless of how it happened, your CD key was banned. You have now received a new key from EA.

For arguments sake, if Even Balance provided you with the "proof" that someone cheated or duped your CD key, what would have done then? You would have still contacted EA for a new key. Still in the same boat but with more money in your pockets. Considering EB has probably heard every single excuse under the sun, its no surprise they were a little curt.

Even Balance is going to provide the server logs showing what happened. I guess I don't understand what your lawyer thinks (s)he is going to benefit from this situation. Your feelings are obviously hurt but acting like a child isn't helping.

Seriously, you need get on with your life. Its way too short to worry about something as trivial as this.

theeaddress

join:2000-06-20
Riverside, CA
reply to quibbly
said by quibbly:
EA stated they will replace my key. Thanks not the problem. The problem is how much power and the open ended EULA that Even Balance has. It's also the attitude that I have received with Even Balance in regards to this problem. With all the emails, faxes and contact with Harris County mitigation, they fail to respond or submit proof that either 1) someone used my key or 2) submit proof of a hack.
So what are you suing for?...it doesn't sound like you are suing for anything other than to express you dissatisfaction that you had to go through that. The court will say that the problem was remedied by EA giving you a new CD key thus fixing your broken product. Then the judge will chew you out for wasting the courts time. I highly doubt you have any lawyer since they'd tell you the same thing for the lovely price of $99.98. You can't sue because you don't like someone's attitude. You can't sue because someone doesn't provide you with specifics as to why there was a glitch especially if they fixed it. They don't owe you anything except for a working product which is what you have.

sounds like trolling

AllWorkNPlay

join:2004-03-28
Apopka, FL
reply to quibbly
You have a personal problem with this guy because of the phone conversation.

You don’t waste the courts time with this crap. It’s a personal issue, not a legal issue. To resolve just don’t buy from that company next time. If what you say is true they will be out of business soon enough.

You are just as wrong as the guy you have a problem with. Maybe someone should sue you because you feel like you are all mighty, no one will treat me this way! It seems you are the one wanting to play judge and jury.

I also doubt you have a lawyer. The first thing any lawyer with morals would say is go home dummy.

I work in the internet customer service field and am threatened at least 30 times a day with a law suit because the customer insists they are right or because they “assumed something” or don’t like how something is handled.

Nothing new. I hope you do waste you money on this, you learn from your mistakes.

Nagrom Nniuq

join:2002-11-19
Springfield, OR
reply to DAlanS
You hit it 100% DAlanS. You legally cannot be denied service to a product you have paid to "lease" as CylonRed said. This is not a lawsuit against a EULA. Again we have people posting that have not read what was posted before they posted.

No you cannot fight a EULA but he is not going to be fighting the EULA he is fighting the fact that his account is banned without any proof of a valid reason. The EULA states nothing about this and as DAlanS said they are refusing service for something that the end user has paid for. This service cannot be refused for any reason except those specified in the EULA. If your service that you "leased" can be refused at any time (which it can't), would be the same as the Police being able to say, "Well you can't drive you car today but we can't tell you why or give you any evidence." (I hope bringing the Police into this doesn't completely change this thread into something else by people who don't read the whole thread but I like to use analogies.)


Penguins
Have You Played Atari Today?

join:2001-12-01
Cleveland, OH
reply to quibbly
Your courtroom analogy is not suited to your transaction.

You entered into a private agreement under the terms of the EULA. You have no 'rights' in this situation other than those granted to you by the private agreement you entered into when you accepted the EULA.

You are going to lose in court. The defendants lawyers also know you are going to lose and will be billing thier client for gigantic sums of money for time and 'research', all of which they know you will end up being forced to pay.

I understand your position and I agree with you, but you are in a situation here that is completely private and you have no 'rights' to plead before to the court. You will find in court that EA's liability ends at the cost of the item you purchased, and that PB has no liability at all under the agreement.

Good luck with your case.
--
Pure magic in 2k of 6502.


GrandFunkRR7
Got Funk??
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Lebanon, PA

1 recommendation

reply to quibbly
Your first mistake was posting this in an open form hoping to get serious advice.Trust me...these guys have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.Your lawyer does though.If he's a good lawyer he/she will explain everything to you and will discuss your chances of winning in court.Your lawyer knows the law...the guys in this forum don't.LOL

Best of luck to you.Fight the good fight and keep your chin up!!! Stick to your guns!!!

Remember,there's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe is right...no matter what anyone tells you.
--
Funk You Quick to judge,quick to anger,slow to understand.Ignorance and prejudice,and fear walk hand in hand. Rush-Witch Hunt


Da22in
Buck Fush

join:2002-06-10
Charlotte, NC
reply to quibbly
You not only have no case regarding PB or they're behavior regarding your cheating "stolen CD key", but whatever you think they are scanning please provide some verification. The only people I've known to hate PB are either severe cheaters or too inept to install it and make it work (proper updating and such).

I don't play without PB enabled. I'm glad to find it recently in BF:Vietnam and SC:Pandora Tomorrow. What is the end result you're hoping for in this legal pursuit? You won't get more than $40. No one's going to jail. No one has broken any laws or infringed on any rights that you hadn't already agreed to have infinged via the EULA.

Sounds more like a "Cheaters Unite!" call, IMO.


qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
reply to quibbly
The real problem here is the EULA. For once in my life I'd say we need more lawsuits, and they need to be against EULAs. Not just this one, but the entire concept of EULAs as they currently exist. You shouldn't be forced to sign away your freedom and / or privacy in exchange for using a product. What needs to happen is someone with deep enough pockets needs to litgate the concept of EULAs all the way to the USSC.
--
A Liberal believes that the Court System’s job is to advance the Liberal agenda that can not be passed into law through the normal Government process. A Conservative realizes that the purpose of the Court System is to enforce the laws, not make them.


Mcrobrewer
Premium
join:2001-03-04
Trenton, NJ
reply to GrandFunkRR7
said by GrandFunkRR7:
Trust me...these guys have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

And how exactly would you know that? Do you know me? know what I do? know what I know?

Take your own advice.

Quib like I said before keep up up to date on this. This is of an interest to me.

Thanks.
--
triponthis.net
The only thing that stands between us and the animals is a really good beer

dewman99

join:2000-12-28
Palm Harbor, FL
reply to quibbly
"I then informed them who I was and what happened. I also informed them that I will be retaining an attorney to solve this problem."

You have got to be kidding me!!!
I am not going to even read this guys BS that's 5 pages long.
But
your going to Try and sue (Fail wasting money)over a fukin $20 game. When all you have to do is goto the damn store and buy another. Or would that be to big of a task for you? I cant believe some of you people out there are this LAME!

The cop thing you mentiond...HA RARELY Happens.
A you think your god and everyone else is wrong.
b your to lazy to just buy a new Game or a tight ass.

Next case evenbalence vs Jagoff.
your honor Jagoff is suing tocobell because his tacos fell through the take out bag and is suing for $1,000,000
for the loss of the meal and the pain and suffering.

Yeah good idea take the courts time up of some BS when it takes years to get a guy convicted of murder.
Maybe you just need to go back to pacman where you will not cry.


jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit
reply to Mcrobrewer
said by Mcrobrewer:
Asking about the law is not BASHING....

Calling someone an idiot is.

Last time I checked you were the one that started bashing by saying on your first post...
said by Mcrobrewer:
Don't cheat and you wont get banned...
So yeah, that qualifies you as an idiot.
--
Jose A. Hernandez * IT Technician * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * My website: Zerochill


Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
kudos:1
reply to quibbly
Woha wait a min.. Who the hell is Even Balance?? and why do they want to take you to court just for calling them???
--
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


renton
Come On You Spurs
Premium
join:2002-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to quibbly
They don't want to take him to court. He wants to take them to court.