Ok so basically you don't want to think about it. That's not how class actions work. They don't need any major resources, often none. There are firms that salivate looking for this kind of issue and I have to deal with such things at work. And about Discord, yes it is against the CURRENT ToS. CURRENTLY it meets the definition of 3rd party tool easily. If they enforce hard that means no tools of any kind and will create a large amount of problems for SEQuote:
Originally Posted by hagare
-
04-26-2022, 01:34 PMStealthPaladin
-
04-26-2022, 01:38 PMhagareOh I'd really like to see that happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthPaladin
We might have a new meme to replace the "thief fell on a roof and sued the owner of the house he was trying to burgle into and wins!"
"man banned for breaking ToS sues company and wins!"
Apparently legally binding contract signed under no duress is just a suggestion now. -
04-26-2022, 01:49 PMJanVandingOkay, you did cheat didn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthPaladin
Your aggressive demeanour and the fact you're talking class action when you would have no leg to stand on is screaming your guilt right now.
You're absolutely terrified of the consequences of your actions.
Even the modding community knows, if they stopped mods tomorrow, there's not a thing they can do because SEs official stance is "Third party mods are prohibited"
It's at their grace that modders get to mod and it's at their grace that if lines get crossed they can and will take action.
And yes I'm being "rude" because all your posts whiff of attempting to gaslight the community while pushing empty lawsuit threats.
That's the behaviour of someone worried they're about to be caught. -
04-26-2022, 02:04 PMInsertusernamehereI checked SDK, those people clearly put a lot of effort to it (kudos). Availability for play station still a problem for SE.Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthPaladin
Honestly I am %99 sure SE will not want to get involved with it unless JP community brings it up as necessity. -
04-26-2022, 02:11 PMTyjacon
In reference to class action suits;
10.7 No Class Action Matters. Disputes will be arbitrated only on an individual basis and will not be consolidated with any other arbitration or other proceeding that involves any claim or controversy of any other party. But if, for any reason, any court with competent jurisdiction or any arbitrator selected pursuant to Section 10.3 holds that this restriction is unconscionable or unenforceable, then our agreement in Section 10.3 to arbitrate will not apply and the Dispute must be brought exclusively in court pursuant to Section 10.8.
For reference; 10.3 Second: Forums for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
(a) Arbitration. If we cannot resolve a Dispute as set forth in Section 10.2 within sixty (60) days of receipt of the notice, then either you or we may submit the Dispute to formal arbitration on an individual basis in accordance with this Section 10.3. Upon expiration of the applicable sixty-day period and to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, a Dispute will be resolved solely by binding arbitration on an individual basis in accordance with the then-current Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). If you prevail in your claim against Square Enix, then Square Enix shall pay all arbitration fees. Square Enix agrees that you may appear at any arbitration proceeding by telephone, unless the amount in controversy is $10,000 or more. If the Dispute has a claimed value of not more than $250,000, then the arbitration will be heard and determined by a single neutral arbitrator who is a retired judge or a lawyer with not less than fifteen (15) years experience as a practicing member of the bar in the substantive practice area related to the Dispute, who will administer the proceedings in accordance with the AAA's Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes. If the Dispute has a claimed value of more than $250,000, or if Square Enix elects in its sole discretion to bear the costs of arbitration in excess of those that would occur for a proceeding before a single neutral arbitrator, then the arbitration will be heard and determined by a three-member panel, with one member to be selected by each party and the third (who will be chair of the panel) selected by the two party-appointed members or by the AAA in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules. The arbitrator or arbitration panel, as the case may be, will apply applicable law and the provisions of this FFXIV User Agreement and any additional terms, will determine any Dispute according to the applicable law and facts based upon the record and no other basis, and will issue a reasoned award. You can obtain AAA procedures, rules, and fee information as follows:
AAA: 800.778.7879 http://www.adr.org/
(b) Nature, Limitations, and Location of Alternative Dispute Resolution. In arbitration, as with a court, the arbitrator must honor the terms of FFXIV User Agreement (and any additional terms) and can award the prevailing party damages and other relief (including attorneys' fees). However, WITH ARBITRATION (A) THERE IS NO JUDGE OR JURY, (B) THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AND ARBITRATION OUTCOME ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY RULES, AND (C) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATION OUTCOME IS LIMITED. All parties to the arbitration will have the right, at their own expense, to be represented by an attorney or other advocate of their choosing. Any arbitration proceeding shall be held at a venue in Los Angeles, CA. Square Enix agrees that you may appear at any arbitration proceeding by telephone, unless the amount in controversy is $10,000 or more, in which case the arbitrator may require you to travel to Los Angeles at your own expense. You and we will pay the administrative and arbitrator's fees and other costs in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules; but if applicable arbitration rules or laws require Square Enix to pay a greater portion or all of such fees and costs in order for this Section 10 to be enforceable, then Square Enix will have the right to elect to pay the fees and costs and proceed to arbitration. If you prevail in your claim against Square Enix, then Square Enix agrees to reimburse you for all arbitration fees and your reasonable, documented travel expenses (if any) incurred to attend arbitration hearings where your physical presence is required by the arbitrator. Discovery will be permitted pursuant to the applicable arbitration rules. The arbitrator's decision must consist of a written statement stating the disposition of each claim of the Dispute, and must provide a statement of the essential findings and conclusions on which the decision and any award (if any) is based. Judgment on the arbitration decision and award (if any) may be entered in or by any court that has jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
And;
10.8 Federal and State Courts in Los Angeles.
Except to the extent that arbitration is required in Section 10.3, and except as to the enforcement of any arbitration decision or award, any action or proceeding relating to any Dispute or Excluded Dispute may only be instituted in state or federal court in Los Angeles County, California. Accordingly, you and Square Enix consent to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of such courts for such matters.
TLDR: No Class Action Matters. Disputes will be arbitrated only on an individual basis -
04-26-2022, 02:35 PMJanVanding
Furthermore, just playing devils advocate here.
The other situation where you could want a "law suit" would to be to imply loss of earnings.
Loss of earnings would mean you're charging for your mods, which let's be quite frank here....
You would be served with a cease and desist for breaking Intellectual property laws since you're effectively taking someone else's copyrighted property, modifying it and passing the protected property off as entirely your own work.
So which one is it? -
04-26-2022, 03:07 PMStealthPaladinIndeed this is part of the ToS -- and I appreciate your genuine response -- however as I keep explaining, courts trump ToS. ToS are not 100% legally binding contracts. Right now courts would throw out such class action. Drastically increase ban enforcement, that can easily change. Case law since 2018 has been aggressively changing in that directionQuote:
Originally Posted by Tyjacon
-----
Separately, to various detractors continually accusing me of some misdeed and derailing useful conversation: No. SE feel free to check if I am making any kind of mods. I will give you access to bank records and business returns if you want. I am making no mods of any kind.
I am however deeply involved in software that
1. Has a paid front end client product
2. Sells a subscription to service run on a server
3. Subscription gives access to to digital assets which ARE NOT OWNED by the user
4. Also has a ToS trying to cover our butts
5. Is increasingly liable to protect the value proposition we present and are vulnerable to class actions if we do not meet certain behaviors
Because of how this service is structured, even though FFXIV is a game and not involved in real estate data, I know very well that courts do not act in line with the wishful thinking presented. ToS are limited in scope when you have this configuration of paid frontend client product and subscription service accessing digital assets. Whether it makes sense to any of us or not, all it takes is one judge that says OK I will allow it despite those terms. That is happening more and more frequently specifically to services that match this description.
I'm sure SE is already well aware that ToS have wishy-washy standing and are not perfect solutions to avoid such action. That is obvious by the fact that they take such reasonable stances on enforcement. However that balance is presently threatened. The logistic nightmare that could spiral out of this situation is something I care about when I try to put myself in the developers shoes. Giving them my two cents is because, in my mind, they could be in a pinch. Now they can take 0% or 1% or 100% of what I offer, but it is free brainstorming for their benefit.
So chill and help think of solutions if you have time. If you think I'm wrong just say you think I'm wrong fine. Great. What do you think should be done in response to recent cheating? Nothing? Should people always have to wonder where the line is drawn on addons? Why should Discord be safe, it conveys a huge competitive advantage? Feel free to put your feedback on the issues; but if you only have snark for me I'm not responding further than referencing this post. -
04-26-2022, 03:20 PMkaynideI can not fathom a world where a profitable business would invite more work to itself policing mods/add ons for no profit. The ToS as it is coupled with the dev’s rather hands-off stance regarding many mods is honestly as ideal as it gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthPaladin
-
04-26-2022, 03:23 PMJanVandingNobody is derailing you, you're coming off as attempting to gaslight people.Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthPaladin
No individual has won a lawsuit after a permanent ban against a company.
No records of those lawsuits ever winning because while you keep saying TOS.
The ultimate one you click agree on, which does hold up legally, the End User Licence Agreement.
The one that says, you actually own nothing, you are granted a license that can be revoked. -
04-26-2022, 04:40 PMStealthPaladin
You have a version of me in your mind that does not exist. Plus, there are many factual errors in what you have just said. There are also problems of "not even being wrong".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanVanding
Not sure what the rest of this statement was supposed to be, but there are plenty of cases which set the precedent outlined. Though winning is not even the issue. To say that is somewhat revealing of a lack of understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by JanVanding
No. Only terms the court holds valid are valid. For any agreement, but as I pointed out the standard is far stricter for the type of software SE has. There is no point trying to convince anyone -- we are the judge of future attempts to take them to trial. Your argument that "oh it IS legally binding" doesn't matter. A lawyer convincing a judge that they should at least go to trial is all that matters. Not winning or losing, not what the ToS say not any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JanVanding
Those are tools SE's lawyers use to say hey, lets dismiss the case look its in our ToS and our EULA. That doesn't mean the court is going to do it.
Oy... so tiring. ok here. Look a lot of this revolves around developments with what's known as the FAA regarding Supreme Court various rulings on arbitration and class action clauses especially. State courts, especially California but many states -- not cut across any political line, are finding ways to get around FAA and deny such clauses.
You can absolutely find records of such cases by doing citation-based searches. Look for recent cases citing any of these:
Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna
Brewer v. Mo. Title Loans
Smith v. Nobiletti Builders, Inc
Figueroa v. THI of N.M. at Casa Arena Blanca LLC
Glob. Client Sols., LLC v. Ossello
Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Dev. Co
That's ONE side, state courts treating class action clauses in many different ways. There are at least 5 often used major workarounds that effectively still end up triggering class action or equivalent. For example sometimes they just find that a choice-of-law clause in an arbitration agreement incorporates state law contrary to the FAA. They may use qui tam or a district known to be soft on unconscionability arguments. So many cases which do not go as expected
Then there's how the FTC fits into the FAA: sort of complimentary, sort of unrelated, sort of conflicting. Not well planned. If the FTC gets interested in a situation it gets very complicated. If a company is even edging on maybe violating some FTC rules, lower courts can use it in all kinds of ways. We would have to have a very long conversation to explain why the FTC cares about the client/server product/subscription model and digital assets. It is out there, if you want to find it you can find it.