Taiko vs SE - UK Law - Data Protection Act (Taiko Wins) :: World of Warcraft

Quote Reply

#177 Nov 21 2010 at 8:07 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1606695494043

Scholar

1,089 posts

Lobivopis wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

Lobivopis wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

TaiStyle wrote:

However, I think there's an argument for the fact that service has been provided and agreed previously. It's a bit of a murky area in fairness.

It's really not. They aren't required to provide a service to anyone. They don't need a reason to refuse service to someone.

Actually if local law stated that they could not refuse service then they would have to either comply with that law in regards to customers in that country or not do business there.

I'm afraid i'm not an expert on global laws. Could you give an example of places with such laws?

Edited, Nov 21st 2010 3:47am by ThePsychoticOne

I can give you an example in the States. Gentleman's clubs can't exclude women from membership anymore thanks to gender discrimination laws.

But since this is an online transaction how do local laws apply? It is my understanding that (for now) virtual transactions are not affected by local laws.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#178 Nov 21 2010 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good

dilthanas

301 posts

in the uk if you buy the service online from the uk, then uk/eu laws apply regardless of the origin of country where the service is provided, ie VAT on online subs. if we pay that SE has to comply with uk law, and we do pay VAT so voila.

____________________________

99 NIN/DNC/WAR/MNK/SAM/BST/WHM/RDM
70 BLM/RNG

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#179 Nov 21 2010 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1612743408497

View User Forum

29,185 posts

Lobivopis wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

Lobivopis wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

TaiStyle wrote:

However, I think there's an argument for the fact that service has been provided and agreed previously. It's a bit of a murky area in fairness.

It's really not. They aren't required to provide a service to anyone. They don't need a reason to refuse service to someone.

Actually if local law stated that they could not refuse service then they would have to either comply with that law in regards to customers in that country or not do business there.

I'm afraid i'm not an expert on global laws. Could you give an example of places with such laws?

I can give you an example in the States. Gentleman's clubs can't exclude women from membership anymore thanks to gender discrimination laws.

Which doesn't stop them from excluding any specific people they want, just from excluding all women. Not really the same thing.

dilthanas wrote:

in the uk if you buy the service online from the uk, then uk/eu laws apply regardless of the origin of country where the service is provided, ie VAT on online subs. if we pay that SE has to comply with uk law, and we do pay VAT so voila.

Yeah, local laws definitely apply.

Edited, Nov 21st 2010 2:01pm by ThePsychoticOne

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#180 Nov 21 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1593971668876

Sage

1,260 posts

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

Lobivopis wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

TaiStyle wrote:

However, I think there's an argument for the fact that service has been provided and agreed previously. It's a bit of a murky area in fairness.

It's really not. They aren't required to provide a service to anyone. They don't need a reason to refuse service to someone.

Actually if local law stated that they could not refuse service then they would have to either comply with that law in regards to customers in that country or not do business there.

I'm afraid i'm not an expert on global laws. Could you give an example of places with such laws?

Edited, Nov 21st 2010 3:47am by ThePsychoticOne

jfgi

There are countries in the world that do have laws to protect customers from denial of a service or the enjoyment of a service for no good reason. Look up Federal Civil Rights and Civil Rights Act for examples of cases in America; however those are physical cases and we're talking about virtual cases. Moving on from there anything you do online is bound by your local law; if you DL a movie or music and piracy is legal in your country (like Iran) then there's not a damn thing anyone can do to you. This also means you are protected by the local laws when it comes to fairness of service for electronic and digital transactions. I'm happy to say the EU looks after its people a lot more when it comes to digital/virtue laws than the yanks do so I wouldn't be surprised if it was in fact illegal for SE to ban anyone from a service without any proof or at the least any refunding whatsoever.

In fact you could argue in a court of law that you purchased FFXI at a local store and pay the continued fees from a local bank account keeping you well within local legal rights to your purchase/service and any unreasonable denial of said service is liable for a refund of your original cash and any cash you've paid for up front for the game.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#181 Nov 21 2010 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1612743408497

View User Forum

29,185 posts

Deshin wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

Lobivopis wrote:

Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:

TaiStyle wrote:

However, I think there's an argument for the fact that service has been provided and agreed previously. It's a bit of a murky area in fairness.

It's really not. They aren't required to provide a service to anyone. They don't need a reason to refuse service to someone.

Actually if local law stated that they could not refuse service then they would have to either comply with that law in regards to customers in that country or not do business there.

I'm afraid i'm not an expert on global laws. Could you give an example of places with such laws?

jfgi

There are countries in the world that do have laws to protect customers from denial of a service or the enjoyment of a service for no good reason. Look up Federal Civil Rights and Civil Rights Act for examples of cases in America; however those are physical cases and we're talking about virtual cases.

Doesn't that not apply to private businesses? And either way, it only affects certain specific issues. It definitely doesn't require a reason to be given, or proof to backup whatever reason was used.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#182 Nov 22 2010 at 2:11 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1719188182213

Scholar

1,590 posts

TaiStyle wrote:

However, I think there's an argument for the fact that service has been provided and agreed previously. It's a bit of a murky area in fairness.

The absolute most you'd be entitled to in the event of a ban is a refund of the remaining part of your month's subscription, since it's paid in advance, since they have an total right to terminate/refuse service as they see it: it's in the ToS and while you're right that a ToS can't override law, per se that clause in the ToS isn't unlawful.

Also, while you may be able to obtain a refund legally, the evidence supplied by SE in the log extracts you've posted clearly show you were being a ****, as such they'd have little difficulty in defending their position that they banned you for breach of the ToS .. which sadly they didn't it seems, so God knows why you're being such a pain in the *** to them, I guess since it's costing you nothing in this "no win no fee" state we live in you're able to cause them to spend time and money dealing with your fatuous complaint .. so even that theoretical redress wouldn't apply.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2010 3:15am by Kragorn

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#183 Dec 31 2010 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1592767311158

View User Forum

Scholar

811 posts

Apologies to bump this up again guys.

Started 2011 suspended. Reason given again is supposed harassment.

Spent NYE indoors, as I've just had knee surgery, and was leveling DNC in Yhoator Jungle in a level sync, as needed to get it to 49. The party I was in wasn't working too well, and I suggested a BLM in the party maybe back up heal in an emergency when I was low on TP. The WHM we had DC'd, and there was a few deaths when he refused to help cure just for that one fight. I stated on leaving that I didn't want to stay due to the leader not being willing to adapt to the situation, at which point I discovered that it was a husband and wife.

Got a bit of abuse in /tell which I responded to, brushing of and reiterating my stance. Player says he is personal friends with a GM, and shortly after I'm jailed for supposedly harassing, when it was more a response to their comments. The response constituted two lines.

GM informs that I'm being suspended due to harassment, and I asked for more information. The SGM kept ignoring my questions, which I had witnessed by someone else. Was again told it's not SE policy to provide me with the logs, at which stage I mentioned the letter from their legal team in front of me.

Completely ignored that, then changed the charge to that of inappropriate behaviour. To quote from the SGM: "Harassing a player is legally not approved, therefore the suspension is only the result of your inappropriate behaviour."

I think this would therefore be contradicting this link from their support pages on inappropriate behaviour, given the context of the situation: http://support.eu.square-enix.com/faqarticle.php?kid=12649&id=455&la=2&ret=faq&pv=10&page=0&c=0&sc=0&so=4&q=inappropriate

It can't really be classed as continuous chatlog spamming, as I only responded to what was sent to me. I've not MPK'd, or done anything else listed as such that would warrant a suspension. My only guess is that this person did actually have a GM friend, in which case they lose the ability to be impartial. I made a request to speak to another GM which was declined, and again this GM didn't answer the questions.

I'm thinking that now I will go down the pay route. Few more days off work, so I'm going to draft up NBA's and again speak to my legal team.

Happy 2011!

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#184 Dec 31 2010 at 10:55 PM Rating: Excellent

Kaolian

View User Forum

Leet Haxör

29,919 posts

Hmmm, the unflag this post as a necropost button may possibly be broken.

Edit: Nope, it just needed a page refresh. yay!

Edited, Dec 31st 2010 8:55pm by Kaolian

____________________________

Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules

▲ Page top

Taiko vs SE - UK Law - Data Protection Act (Taiko Wins)Follow