113 réponses à ce sujet

[meznaric]

A week ago or so my account was temporarily suspended for expressing political views not beneficial to EA (I said that piracy was not the same as stealing basically). The suspension was meant to last for 72 hours, but during this time I was still able to use the forums on the computers where I was still logged in. However, anywhere else I would not be able to log in. This is still the case a week afterwards and I am left unable to access Cerberus Network, no matter where I am. I bought the game and consider this a withdrawal of service that I paid for. I therefore would be very grateful if my account could be restored or my payment returned.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Uh oh.

1) It's weekend, so little chance of BW employees being around.
2) This looks more like something you should contact customer support about.

Edit...
3) You could send a PM to the one who banned you. I am sure that this is not what he/she intended.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 mars 2010 - 04:49 .

[meznaric]

Yeah, you are very likely right. But I don't know how to find out who banned me, I only received a generic e-mail about it from EA. So if anyone has ever been banned temporarily and knows what to do in such a situation, any help would be appreciated.

[dustin_ds3000]

what did you do to get banned

[Kandid001]

dustin_ds3000 wrote...

what did you do to get banned

He rattled EA's cage apparently.

Read his post.

[barbati99]

Lol, they got "offended". Hey OP, sorry to hear that man, censorship sucks, I gotta agree with ya.

[madisk]

I wouldn't lump in piracy with theft of material possessions either, but I do think that developers deserve to be paid for their effort. Publishers need to butt out of decisions that limit the artistic freedom of the dev's and definitely take a step back from using DRM's which exhibit behavior similar to malware or introduce ridiculous install limits. Neither helps the sales of the product. I and a large number of other players back out of purchasing games that include these 'improvements' by the publishers.

[Busomjack]

You deserve to have had your account suspended for advocating piracy. I'm sick of arrogant little ****s who think they're entitled to everything.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

You deserve to have had your account suspended for advocating piracy. I'm sick of arrogant little ****s who think they're entitled to everything.

Haven't read the post that got OP into this mess, I'm however assuming he didn't 'advocate' piracy. I do agree from a logical perspective that piracy does not equate theft as we see it in the material world. Furthermore, I don't see how it's justified to withdraw functionality that OP has paid for simply because he disagrees with the DMCA.

[Busomjack]

Even though I despise people who act as apologists to piracy, I actually do feel a bit sorry for the OP.



He deserved to be banned from these forums no doubt but I think EA taking away his ability to access the Cerberus network is going too far.



So now not only is he banned from the forums but EA has also decided that they're going to hamper his ability to enjoy the game that he paid for. Why is that necessary?

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

You deserve to have had your account suspended for advocating piracy. I'm sick of arrogant little ****s who think they're entitled to everything.

Haven't read the post that got OP into this mess, I'm however assuming he didn't 'advocate' piracy. I do agree from a logical perspective that piracy does not equate theft as we see it in the material world. Furthermore, I don't see how it's justified to withdraw functionality that OP has paid for simply because he disagrees with the DMCA.

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.  Gamers are not a charity.  If you have a game that you didn't pay for then you're a thief.

[Cadarin]

Busomjack wrote...
So now not only is he banned from the forums but EA has also decided that they're going to hamper his ability to enjoy the game that he paid for. Why is that necessary?

How do you know he even paid for it?  That's kind of the problem with piracy after all.  It'd be really easy for him to prove that he did buy the game, so if that's the case I wish him a swift recovery of his priveleges.  If not, I wish him a swift kick in the nuts. 

[Busomjack]

Cadarin wrote...

Busomjack wrote...
So now not only is he banned from the forums but EA has also decided that they're going to hamper his ability to enjoy the game that he paid for. Why is that necessary?

How do you know he even paid for it?  That's kind of the problem with piracy after all.  It'd be really easy for him to prove that he did buy the game, so if that's the case I wish him a swift recovery of his priveleges.  If not, I wish him a swift kick in the nuts. 

I figured that since he's registered that probably means he paid for it. 

[madisk]

OP, could you please reference us to the post that got you in trouble in the first place? For the sake of discussion

Busomjack wrote...

Even though I despise people who act as apologists to piracy, I actually do feel a bit sorry for the OP.

I don't necessarily agree that disagreeing with the DRM limitations and other questionable ways the publishers 'protect' their investments is advocating piracy. Furthermore I think that DMCA is ridiculous and unnecessarily limits the rights of the end user who paid for their product. No matter how hard they try, they'll never eliminate piracy, and introducing new 'countermeasures' against it will only limit the rights of the people who legitimately own the software.

Name one game / software product that hasn't successfully been cracked by the cracking community, please.

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.

I think you have a flawed perception of the democratic process.

Modifié par madisk, 07 mars 2010 - 02:09 .

[reepneep]

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.  Gamers are not a charity.  If you have a game that you didn't pay for then you're a thief.

So are you saying that you think that discussion of the subtleties of law and morality equates to outright endorsement of lawlessness and immorality?  Am I reading that right?

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

OP, could you please reference us to the post that got you in trouble in the first place? For the sake of discussion

Busomjack wrote...

Even though I despise people who act as apologists to piracy, I actually do feel a bit sorry for the OP.

I don't necessarily agree that disagreeing with the DRM limitations and other questionable ways the publishers 'protect' their investments is advocating piracy. Furthermore I think that DMCA is ridiculous and unnecessarily limits the rights of the end user who paid for their product. No matter how hard they try, they'll never eliminate piracy, and introducing new 'countermeasures' against it will only limit the rights of the people who legitimately own the software.

Name one game / software product that hasn't successfully been cracked by the cracking community, please.

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.

I think you have a flawed perception of the democratic process.

I actually agree with you that DRM is an ineffective way for dealing with piracy.  Personally, I would deal with it the way ancient Islamic cultures dealt with thieves.  Cut off their hands. 

It would be interesting to see them try their "LOL TORRENT FTW!" with no hands.

In all seriousness though, I don't like DRM but that doesn't make piracy ok.

As for your second point about "the democratic process" interpretation of the law is not democratic.  Piracy is not a moral term, it is a legal term and the law says that it is illegal.  Just because you dissagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it.

Modifié par Busomjack, 07 mars 2010 - 02:32 .

[Busomjack]

reepneep wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.  Gamers are not a charity.  If you have a game that you didn't pay for then you're a thief.

So are you saying that you think that discussion of the subtleties of law and morality equates to outright endorsement of lawlessness and immorality?  Am I reading that right?

I think it depends.  If you're saying piracy is not theft for example you're advocating the breaking of the law.

As I said before, piracy is a legal term , not a moral term.  Current law interprets software piracy as theft.  It's not open for discussion, the law doesn't work that way.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

As for your second point about "the democratic process" interpretation of the law is not democratic.  Piracy is not a moral term, it is a legal term and the law says that it is illegal.  Just because you dissagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it.

Just because the system is there doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to discuss how to improve or change it for the betterment of the system itself. I didn't say a thing about 'interpreting the law' in one's favor, I said that people should be able to voice their concerns about the flaws in the existing laws. It's obvious that current measures against software piracy are virtually ineffective, and DRM and the DMCA do nothing but restrict the rights of legitimate customers, while those who acquire the software trough piracy enjoy them without the restrictions imposed on legitimate customers by the publishers. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty pissed off that suddenly we're limited to a number of predetermined installs and not allowed to make backup copies of software we've purchased. That's ridiculous. Before the DMCA no one had an objection if you decided to make backup copies of your software in case the original carrier malfunctions or breaks. Digital distribution is another thing, but as long as the software I purchase comes on a physical carrier I should have the right to make backup copies of the data - after all I'm paying for the information embedded in the carrier, not the carrier itself.

Giving the end user back the freedom to decide how and when they use or store their purchased software won't affect the bottom line of the companies. A legitimate user is still bound by the EULA to not share the software illegally and only use it in a way specified in the licence agreement. I doubt that removing the DRM restrictions or changing the terms of the DMCA will cause every legitimate owner of the software to suddenly decide to share it with everyone and their grandmother. People who buy software do it because they think it's right that the people who made it deserve to be rewarded for it (from a moral viewpoint. It could be for any other number of reasons, such as customer support, etc.). Pirates on the other hand will engage in software theft regardless just because they don't share that mindset. They want it now and they want it for free.

I doubt that any company stands to lose anything from removing DRM and other restrictions. In fact, I'd say it would actually improve their bottom line because these days there are a lot of potential customers out there that decide whether they buy a product or not depending on the third-party additions to the product itself - in case of games it's the DRM install limits, GFWL, and all that other useless crap that just hinders the gaming experience for people who bought the game.

From where we stand right now it seems like the legitimate customer is getting punished because of software piracy. And honestly, there's nothing the legitimate customer can do about it - regardless of the amount of wishful thinking, I can't just make piracy disappear, so I'm left to decide whether I'm going to purchase a product that hinders my ability to enjoy it or whether I'll just pass it by entirely.

Modifié par madisk, 07 mars 2010 - 02:49 .

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

As for your second point about "the democratic process" interpretation of the law is not democratic.  Piracy is not a moral term, it is a legal term and the law says that it is illegal.  Just because you dissagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it.

Just because the system is there doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to discuss how to improve or change it for the betterment of the system itself. I didn't say a thing about 'interpreting the law' in one's favor, I said that people should be able to voice their concerns about the flaws in the existing laws. It's obvious that current measures against software piracy are virtually ineffective, and DRM and the DMCA do nothing but restrict the rights of legitimate customers, while those who acquire the software trough piracy enjoy them without the restrictions imposed on legitimate customers by the publishers. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty pissed off that suddenly we're limited to a number of predetermined installs and not allowed to make backup copies of software we've purchased. That's ridiculous. Before the DMCA no one had an objection if you decided to make backup copies of your software in case the original carrier malfunctions or breaks. Digital distribution is another thing, but as long as the software I purchase comes on a physical carrier I should have the right to make backup copies of the data - after all I'm paying for the information embedded in the carrier, not the carrier itself.

Giving the end user back the freedom to decide how and when they use or store their purchased software won't affect the bottom line of the companies. A legitimate user is still bound by the EULA to not share the software illegally and only use it in a way specified in the licence agreement. I doubt that removing the DRM restrictions or changing the terms of the DMCA will cause every legitimate owner of the software to suddenly decide to share it with everyone and their grandmother. People who buy software do it because they think it's right that the people who made it deserve to be rewarded for it (from a moral viewpoint. It could be for any other number of reasons, such as customer support, etc.). Pirates on the other hand will engage in software theft regardless just because they don't share that mindset. They want it now and they want it for free.

I doubt that any company stands to lose anything from removing DRM and other restrictions. In fact, I'd say it would actually improve their bottom line because these days there are a lot of potential customers out there that decide whether they buy a product or not depending on the third-party additions to the product itself - in case of games it's the DRM install limits, GFWL, and all that other useless crap that just hinders the gaming experience for people who bought the game.

From where we stand right now it seems like the legitimate customer is getting punished because of software piracy. And honestly, there's nothing the legitimate customer can do about it - regardless of the amount of wishful thinking, I can't just make piracy disappear, so I'm left to decide whether I'm going to purchase a product that hinders my ability to enjoy it or whether I'll just pass it by entirely.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.  That is how capitalism works.  Money talks when it comes to business, that is why DRM is likely on the way out since it's proven counter productive.
I'm not saying people should not have the right to discuss better business practices.  Hell, do so by all means but piracy is a crime.  That is settled law.  You may not like the law but if you deny that it is a crime or say that just because EA or Activision does some things you don't like that makes it ok to pirate then you're advocating criminal behaviour.
That is why the OP deserved to be banned.

Since he apprently paid for the game though, I do think banning his Cerberus Network account was going too far.

[madisk]

Busomjack wrote...

If you don't like it, don't buy it.  That is how capitalism works.  Money talks when it comes to business, that is why DRM is likely on the way out since it's proven counter productive.
I'm not saying people should not have the right to discuss better business practices.  Hell, do so by all means but piracy is a crime.  That is settled law.  You may not like the law but if you deny that it is a crime or say that just because EA or Activision does some things you don't like that makes it ok to pirate then you're advocating criminal behaviour.
That is why the OP deserved to be banned.

Since he apprently paid for the game though, I do think banning his Cerberus Network account was going too far.

I'm well aware how capitalism works, than you very much, but if we continue down the path we're going right now then the legitimate customer will always be bound in a software prison. I've never said that piracy should be legal, I'm just saying that it needs to be redefined in our current laws. Stop putting words in my mouth.

It's not just about the business, it's about the ethics of the business. Software business is completely different from anything we've seen before the digital revolution and I wholeheartedly believe that DMCA hinders our progress as a technological society towards a more healthy, productive and ethical way of managing the industry. DMCA needs to be abolished and replaced by something that actually works and I stand by my opinion. If EA or anyone else would withdraw a service I've paid for for voicing my opinion, I would definitely file a law suit against them (unless the EULA states that arguing against the DMCA on public forums voids my access to certain features, which I doubt).

I believe the change will come eventually when legitimate customers realize that they're getting more and more ripped off every time some new piracy countermeasure is introduced and stop buying the products.

[Busomjack]

madisk wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

If you don't like it, don't buy it.  That is how capitalism works.  Money talks when it comes to business, that is why DRM is likely on the way out since it's proven counter productive.
I'm not saying people should not have the right to discuss better business practices.  Hell, do so by all means but piracy is a crime.  That is settled law.  You may not like the law but if you deny that it is a crime or say that just because EA or Activision does some things you don't like that makes it ok to pirate then you're advocating criminal behaviour.
That is why the OP deserved to be banned.

Since he apprently paid for the game though, I do think banning his Cerberus Network account was going too far.

I'm well aware how capitalism works, than you very much, but if we continue down the path we're going right now then the legitimate customer will always be bound in a software prison. I've never said that piracy should be legal, I'm just saying that it needs to be redefined in our current laws. Stop putting words in my mouth.

It's not just about the business, it's about the ethics of the business. Software business is completely different from anything we've seen before the digital revolution and I wholeheartedly believe that DMCA hinders our progress as a technological society towards a more healthy, productive and ethical way of managing the industry. DMCA needs to be abolished and replaced by something that actually works and I stand by my opinion. If EA or anyone else would withdraw a service I've paid for for voicing my opinion, I would definitely file a law suit against them (unless the EULA states that arguing against the DMCA on public forums voids my access to certain features, which I doubt).

I believe the change will come eventually when legitimate customers realize that they're getting more and more ripped off every time some new piracy countermeasure is introduced and stop buying the products.

legitimate consumers aren't being forced to buy anything.  The way things change is determined by how much money a product makes.  Take for instance Ubisoft's incredibly stupid online to play policy for the PC version of Assassin's Creed II.  When that inevitably backfires we'll probably never see such an idiotic idea again.

You've made the case about why DMCA is bad....for you, but not for the industry.  If it were bad for the industry, the policies would change.  You can do your part by not purchasing products that you don't find satisfactory.  Personally.
I think most consumers don't really invest as much emotion into the issue as you do.  DRM is kind of annoying yeah but I personally have hardly ever had any real issue with it.  A couple of minor incoveniences but nothing to shout about.

[Sir Shendar]

Busomjack wrote...

DRM is kind of annoying yeah but I personally have hardly ever had any real issue with it.  A couple of minor incoveniences but nothing to shout about.

I disagree. Full-time internet access requirement to play a single player game is hardly a "minor inconvenience".

[reepneep]

Busomjack wrote...

reepneep wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.  Gamers are not a charity.  If you have a game that you didn't pay for then you're a thief.

So are you saying that you think that discussion of the subtleties of law and morality equates to outright endorsement of lawlessness and immorality?  Am I reading that right?

I think it depends.  If you're saying piracy is not theft for example you're advocating the breaking of the law.

As I said before, piracy is a legal term , not a moral term.  Current law interprets software piracy as theft.  It's not open for discussion, the law doesn't work that way.

Actually its copyright infringement with no monetary gain, not theft.  Ignoring the fact that the two have fundamental differences, if you want to talk law, stop using incorrect terminology.

The law (generally speaking) reflects the average moral judgements of the society that wrote them.  Law and morality are intrinsically linked, you can't discuss one without discussing the other.

Also, if law weren't open for interperitation, there'd be no reason for judges, apellate courts and a tiered system culminating in the Supreme Court.

You seem to have a black and white view of the world.  Nothing is that simple.