Gamers Rights Law » banning

Community standards: what’s that?

jaymoffitt — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:38:10 +0000

Yes, the infamous “Banhammer”.Creative Commons attribution license, Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/powi/519822065/

The standards for banning gamers differ from community to community. But with a recent growing trend of acquisitions, is the standard changing via the takeover company? Should it? Does community standard even have a meaning anymore with worldwide gaming so predominant that you may not even have someone from your country, much less your state, in your gaming group?

Even though some games have different standards for forum banning and game banning, I’m going to group these together and be specific if there’s a known difference. Here’s some starting points from sources I’ve found in the developer or forum communities. (As a special added bonus I’ve noted the recent modding case decision).

From Forumblogger (a website devoted to running good forums), a short guide as to when/why/how to ban members.

From Techland blog, Xbox Users banned from using swastika symbol as avatar. For more, read on…

From Kotaku, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy Nixed on XBox 360 Live”.

Somewhat related, from Wired: Trial of X-box modding defendant delayed again…. WAIT.. Federal prosecutors drop case… via Gamasutra

Starcraft 2 users banned, via Computerandvideogames.com

Microsoft bans COD BlackOps users for network manipulation, from Playfire website

Great article from Gamasutra about Website/game localization(squeezing it in here because it fits the topic of “universal” banning standards versus “localized” banning standards.)

OK, this one is for me. (from Bitmob) It’s the rags-to-riches story of a guy who goes from forum poster to full-time employee. (Like Kurt Warner story, but with vid-games).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Personal commentary: these updates are just a compilation of the recent notable bans and modding decisions. They are presented without comment. My only minor addition to this would be the noting of the severe drop in these types of cases, and that gamers and developers/publishers seem to be getting closer in their idea of what is a “bannable” offense. Comments??

Subscribe to Gamers Rights Law Feed by Email

Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.

First, a Blizzard Warning

jaymoffitt — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:34:47 +0000

From the Movie ”Death Becomes Her”, “Now, a warning“, link to trailer. Well, they couldn’t say Blizzard didn’t warn them. More after the jump

Photo by Megaman, http://www.flickr.com/photos/meta-man/4198170449/

Used via Creative Commons License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

After the warning, Blizzard is on record filing suit against 6 alleged hackers in the game Starcraft 2 ®, story here (according to Gamasutra). According to the story, that lawsuit was dropped.

This week, there was a lawsuit filed in California against three hackers (according to Geekosytem). More links here, (Ripten), and here (Big Download).

All versions of the story claim the three defendants are out of the U.S., but are subject to U.S. jurisdiction per the End User License Agreement (EULA) of Starcraft II.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Purely commentary: As you know, this legal blog frequently links to independent gaming blogs whose view of the actions of the large gaming companies range from respectful to downright sarcastic. In this case, my own personal commentary will be much more kind (as it usually is).

It’s not only listed in the EULA, it’s posted as a warning on the Website (which, frankly, a lot more people will read than the entirety of the EULA), and then enforcement followed. Apparently in the first incident reported (and I must report I have found no lawsuit link, either my usual sources or in the news stories) the purported lawsuit was dropped. In the second claimed lawsuit it is reported as still live.

These games, whether paid or free-to-play (still a term of art) have a very real positive obligation to monitor cheaters. As an attorney, I believe that litigation (either against gamers, or gamers feeling they are unfairly targeted) is a small but important part of that equation. To me, this is almost a case study of the right way to approach the problem of “unfair advantage” in a large online game. Of course, this is purely predicated on current reports.

As you know, I’m no apologist for the large gaming companies (who many people find to be tone-deaf to individual gamers). However, specifically in this case, I couldn’t point out a different way they could have went with this.

Subscribe to Gamers Rights Law Feed by Email

Are lawsuits taking the fun out of gaming?

jaymoffitt — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:33:33 +0000

Just a gentle reminder; I was a gamer a long time before I was a lawyer. Every day I (like many of you) read a lawsuit notice that seems so patently absurd that as a fellow lawyer I wince. Lawsuits that I’m sure 10 lawyers may have turned down before 1 took it. Non-lawyers need to remember; a lawsuit can be turned down by 10,20, even 50 lawyers, but if a person feels he/she has been wronged, it only requires 1 lawyer to file a lawsuit for it to become public record, make the papers, and usually make people say “Lawyers will sue over anything.” Mind you, sometimes it is a meaningful cause that only one lawyer is brave enough to take… but sometimes it can be simply ludicruous. Not here to apologize for lawyers in toto (that’s above my pay grade, as the saying goes) but a caution to non-lawyers out there that most attorneys (such as myself) would rather turn down 3-4 chances to file a lawsuit waiting for something that is truly valid and will result in a substantial monetary judgment/settlement for a client.

Here’s some other thoughts about taking fun out of gaming.

Player Perspectives: Is it Time to Quit, a good article from MMOPRG.com My favorite quote is “The MMO Industry doesn’t want you to quit, of course. It makes money by your loyalty to its game styles and brands, just like any other entertainment business.”

Respecting your Players at the excellent gaming blog “Eating Bees”. (Yeah, I sometimes wish the Bar would let me name a legal blog something really cool… ain’t gonna happen though). My favorite quote from this insightful article is ” I took this job because I thought the product was worth believing in, and because people are pretty much people no matter what the topic is. But having deep, sincere respect for what it is that my players love is going to fuel me for the long haul.” It’s a reminder there are, and will always be, a lot of developers, moderators, and administrators in the video-game and online game business who treat it as more evangelism than simply business. Thanks to them!

Sunk Costs, Pre-orders, and Game Over at the deep-thinking blog “The Psychology of Videogames”. It talks about the reasoning behind following “good money after bad” in a video-game purchase. My favorite quote is ” Robyn M. Dawes even describes in his book Rational Choice in an Irrational World4 how this is pretty much the same logic that a heroin addict would use to avoid treatment before reaching rock bottom. Yeah. Think about THAT. ”

Maybe I’m alone in thinking of an insidious “long-tail of excessive-lawsuit fever”; known forevermore as Lota Elf. I’d be interesting in hearing from developers if they’ve ever scrapped a cool feature of an online game because of worries over possible litigation, or if an online community administrator decided to shut down an otherwise pleasant community because of one or two “dangerous characters” who were repeatedly threatening lawsuits over one topic or another. Remember, it’s the game that doesn’t get made, or the really cool “wave of the future” mod/add-on/enhancement that we will never miss because we never meet (sorry for the chick-flick reference!).

AtoZVirtualWorlds

jaymoffitt — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:11:56 +0000

Legal activitiy AtoZ in last several months (by its nature selective)

A-Avatar (lawsuits in Madden, Guitar Hero, and Second Life for actions of avatars)

B – Banned in Games (lawsuits by Estavillo vs Sony, SD Cal Estavillo v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86821; along with others)

C-China – China shuts down World of Warcraft… twice. (Good story on Gamasutra)

D - Developer’s Corner ( a regular feature on this blog spotlighting a developer’s role in promoting fun and reducing lawsuits)

E-Everquest (the first, the groundbreaker)

F-Facebook (lawsuits over privacy and “scamming” games cause major changes in the principles on the Facebook platform)

G-Gamer’s Rights (Here, and on my own site)

H Harassment (Sexual) Article in the Guardian.

I- In-game bank (In Eve Online, a real in-world bank is embezzled)

J – Joystiq legal - still the best read every week; blazes the trail

K-Kurt Cobain …. his use in video game causes controversy and widespread comment about use of dead celebrities in video games

L-Lineage (the largest MMO in China)

M – Madden Football (sued by retired players for using their likenesses)

N-No Doubt …. sues Activision, is sued by Activision (lawsuit here)

O – online petition (for online game, Modern Warfare 2); gamers try to launch intiative for dedicated servers outside Activision control (FAILED)

P – Playstation Network (sued for updates which crippled add-on firmware)

Q – Questing – In WOW, Shacknews has an article about 9 problems of questing [[Author's Note - seriously, unless Qbert was sued in the last six months, just scraps here]].

R - Runescape; Jagex is the parent of Runescape

S – Second Life… a slow year for litigation, but these important lawsuits worth note (Bragg v Linden Labs, No. 06-08711, for land taken by LL, citation here)

T – Turbine sues Atari ; also Turbine mentioned here

U – User Interface; usability From the always worthwhile Gamasutra, a daily read.

V-Voice Actors (voting to decline union’s recommendation for new agreement)

W-World of Warcraft (sues to close Wow Glider add-on as an illegal “bot”; Virtually Blind still your best source)

X – Xbox; 1 million Xbox users banned

Y – Youth market; youth endangered

Z- Zynga (sues former developer for trade secrets)

My apologies to “bots”, “Lords of the Rings Online”, “virtual goods”, and others for the 26-sided tyrrany and limitations of the alphabet. Additions and corrections welcome; but if you think this type of a list is easy (complete with relevant links) try just doing a list with household goods.

Banned in Videogames – a Brief History

jaymoffitt — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:33:05 +0000

Today’s article is MAINLY about lifetime, universal, or at last long-term banning.

Let’s break down the component parts first of all. No discussion of legal terms is complete without a glossary, so I’m going to give you the abridged version. There will also be a referral for outside reading to understand the history of community in video games.

Universal banning – A pipe dream. Not yet technologically possible from an economic standpoint. For example, that would be Sony (or Activision) or Microsoft feels you have created a grievance so heinous, or repeated on so many occasions, that your personal ID (not just your gamertag, or your machine-tag, or your IP address, but you PERSONALLY, are banned from their games online at any computer, any console, or any IP address.) Developers can only dream of this type of power.

Banned by gamertag – this is the way of most online games. Depending upon whether player is paying for the gaming, or whether it is free-to-subscribe (and paid via optional add-ons) the banning varies in effectiveness. Tracks you by username and billing/registration information. Obviously if free-to-subscribe it is simple (if you are dishonest) to give an email address and a fake name.

Banned by game console or IP address – This is the most used these days. Especially with Xbox360 and PS3 accounts now updating regularly so as to tie these to the internet, the difficulty of “just playing” and not connecting is very complicated. And so the banning effectively “bricks” the Xbox360 or the PS3 to any additional updates through the company servers.

Starting from most recent to a little earlier: here goes…

Bragg vs. Linden
A great article on Law.com about the banning of Bragg. It is insidiously complicated or notoriously simple, depending upon how you look at it. Here is your legal citation and synopsis, “After a dispute over a land auction, Linden seized Bragg’s virtual land as well as an account with $2,000. Bragg v. Linden Research Inc., No. 06-08711 (Chester Co., Pa., Ct. C.P.). ”

Dailytech tells the story of the estimated one million X-box live customers banned from using the service for having modded consoles. The quote from Microsoft is “When a Gamertag comes up as violating our policies for online behavior, the person who owns that Gamertag is punished by being banned from the service. Keep in mind, this isn’t just a ban on a particular game. This is a ban on the Xbox Live service as a whole, so you won’t be able to go online at all during your ban”

Activision’s proactive legal strategy to give cease-and-desist orders to Websites running programs/addons that Activision feels violates the terms of use. (The Cease and Desist letter posted at Play No Evil video-game security blog).

Blizzard bans WOW glider from ingame use, and is victorious in the lawsuit. This is another version where the users are permanently banned.

Amicus brief filed by Public Knowledge in the case. Incredible background if you’re asking “what’s modding?”.
Ongoing coverage of the case given by Virtually Blind from 2008. Still the superior coverage of the older cases.

Kotaku has a story about Blizzard banning 350,000 users in Battle.net. The justification and method listed is “The Diablo II CD keys associated with the closed Diablo II accounts are now restricted from playing on Battle.net for approximately 30 days. Repeat offenders will have their accounts closed and their CD keys permanently banned from Battle.net. As a reminder, we reserve the right to close the accounts and ban the CD keys of players who are caught cheating on Battle.net. ”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are a couple of places to find some background on the philosophy of games, choices, and banning.

Interview with Raph Koster :A point he brings up during the discussion is that the biggest and most successful games on the market are the ones that present very little choices for the gamer, and pegs them into roles that need to be fulfilled or they fail (World of Warcraft is the example).

So to this lawyer, it makes sense that the games with the fewer choices would be the most vigilant about enforcement to restrict those choices (i.e. mods, add-ons, etc.).

2. Commentary on a video-games Website; “is there a banning quota?”

3. Again, a good sampling of the response from developers as far as banning games.

4. Posts tagged banning at Massively.com (A great resource for MMO news)

5. Why Governments aren’t Gods and God’s aren’t Governments. Great article, especially concerning the whole philosophical reasoning of why an operation must be able to govern in games.

6. And lastly, of course, one for the eggheads. Basically, an article that gave me a headache, so it MUST BE GOOD.

If you’re looking for a broad statement of philosophy from me about this subject, you can move on. It is like all games, the choices on banning reflect the choices of the developers. Whether that is an actionable offense by the developers to kick out a player forever from their world, that legal decision is in my opinion at least 5 or 10 years away at least.