SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the big-brother-is-morally-judging-you dept.
On December 7, a Magic: The Gathering player with a YouTube channel called "UnSleevedMedia" ( https://www.youtube.com/user/mtgheadquarters ) was banned for life from the game by the Hasbro subsidiary Wizards of the Coast for allegedly harassing others in the MtG community on social media. As a consequence, he immediately lost access to all the virtual items he's previously purchased while receiving no refund, and he may no longer play online, partake in tournaments, or cover events on his YouTube channel (details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIh3ykLBzOM ).
The ban was issued after articles appeared on gaming news sites Polygon ( https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/29/16709796/magic-the-gathering-cosplayer-harassment-youtube ) and Kotaku ( https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/magic-subreddit-on-lockdown-after-cosplayer-quit-due-to-alleged-harassment/ ), where a cosplayer accused UnsleevedMedia operator Jeremy Hambly of persistent harassment. (Note: While the articles report on the controversy, neither present any actual evidence for either side.)
While Mr Hambly claims that the allegations of threats and harassment are demonstrably false, and that the evidence against him is based on excerpts from Twitter/Facebook posts taken out of context, he now says he's uncovered something quite chilling while investigating the case: evidence that employees at Wizards of the Coast are trawling the Internet looking for social media activities going back years in search of conduct they might find "objectionable".
In at least one instance they've allegedly requested and gained access to a closed Facebook group only tangentially related to the MtG community, and then issued bans and warnings based on the contents of conversations therein. This includes a one-year ban against professional player Travis Woo, who has now effectively lost his job. Mr Hambly presented the evidence for these claims in a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGFcLvDRJNQ ) on his other channel, "The Quartering" ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwE_ODI1YTbdjkzuSi1Nag ).
In response to this, he has started a change.org petition ( https://www.change.org/p/hasbro-wizards-of-the-coast-must-reinstate-travis-woo-jeremy-hambly ) asking people to boycott all Hasbro products until such time as the bans are reversed. His main argument is that corporations should not be allowed enforce End User License Agreements that dictate what a person may or may not say or do in their spare time on social media.
(Disclaimer: I've signed the petition, as I wouldn't like to see a future where a Twitter spat could cost someone their Steam games.)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:42AM (3 children)
It is a contract of adhesion and it is possible that the section could be found unconscionable: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract [thefreedictionary.com]
It might be worth trying a lawsuit -- the terms are so broad that this provision can amount to pure theft.
Contract rights aren't absolute -- for example, if Hasbro had a term in their contract that at its discretion, it could pay you $50 in exchange for stabbing you in the kidney, that wouldn't be enforceable and you could certainly sue if they tried.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:16AM (2 children)
Perhaps. In fact, I suggested just that elsewhere [soylentnews.org].
What's more, that was implied in my initial post:
At the same time, termination clauses are pretty standard in these types of agreements and that one isn't very unusual IMHO.
How exactly could terminating someone's access to a *free-to-play* amount to theft? Or perhaps I'm missing something.
It's important to understand not only what you're getting (consideration), but also what rights both you and the other party(ies) have under such a contract. The contract clearly states that either party could terminate the agreement at any time for any reason.
While it's certainly possible that this guy could file suit over being terminated, it seems unlikely (at least to me) he'd get much traction with such a claim.
As I've learned a little more about this situation, it seems that the person terminated by Hasbro is mostly concerned about the stored value of in-game purchases made. He may well have a claim to recover either the in-game purchases (fat lot of good it will do him if it he can't play the game) or monetary recompense for loss of use of the in-game objects he purchased.
I suspect he would have a much better chance to recover at least some of the money spent on in-game purchases.
Was Hasbro heavy-handed here? Maybe. Should they have taken a different approach? Maybe. Maybe they did. For all we know, they contacted this guy to discuss the issue they perceived and didn't get the answers they wanted. Or maybe they just decided that having one user driving other users off their platform was bad for their rep and their bottom line.
From a contractual standpoint, who is the "wronged" party here? Hasbro? Not even close. Is the banned guy the wronged party? I say probably not, given that many (most?) agreements have termination clauses, and this one seems pretty straightforward. As such, getting kicked out of a *free-to-play* game was absolutely a foreseeable consequence, whether it be because Hasbro decided to shutter the game (would you make a different argument if that were the case?) or they decided they didn't want him around, as they did.
I don't know all the details surrounding the termination of his access to the game, but it was clearly within Hasbro's purview (as well as the guy who was terminated) to do so. Will a court decide otherwise? Possibly, but I doubt if a court would find the mutual termination provision to be invalid.
What I expect will happen (which is probably, given the situation the best-case scenario for this guy) is that he will eventually be paid however much money he spent on in-game purchases. This may happen as a result of the bad PR or as a result of an out-of-court settlement after a lawsuit is filed. I also expect that he will never be re-instated.
As I said a bunch of times in this thread, while there certainly is an issue with abusive or one-sided contracts, the guy had a responsibility to understand what his position was WRT the agreement *prior* to entering into it. What happened to him was a foreseeable consequence of the agreement he freely entered into with Hasbro.
IANAL, but this isn't really such a complicated issue and the "fine print" wasn't all that fine.
This is (or should be) a cautionary tale for all of us. What's more, it should motivate us all to refuse to sign contracts that are overly complex or give enormous leverage to one side over another. If enough people refuse to enter into such contracts, corporations will need to modify their contracts to be less complex/broad/abusive/etc. if they want to do business.
Alternatively, there could be legislation (there's a patchwork of laws across not just the several states, but around the world) which have varying requirements as to what contract terms are enforceable. Perhaps a simplicity requirement or even a relevant summary (as is done with credit card offers in the US) of terms and conditions in plain language would be useful.
AFAICT, Hasbro didn't defraud this guy or not provide the services agreed to in the contract. They merely exercised their rights under that contract. Caveat Emptor. It was incumbent on this guy to know what his agreement actually entailed before entering into it.
The in-game purchases are another issue, and (potentially) a more complex one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because I do think a refund (potentially a partial refund) would be the proper course of action...however, it's also a somewhat dangerous precedent. People might decide once they tire of the game that they need to get themselves banned so that they can get a full refund on their way out.
Part of this is the problem of digital items -- they don't wear out, they don't really depreciate. There's a couple solutions to that though. First, you can make the items actually "wear out" over time -- it's good for 1k uses, then you've gotta buy a new one. So if you've got 500 uses left, they'll give you a 50% refund. Or they could potentially base it on average usage -- if the longest active account is six years old, and you've played for three, then you get 50% back. Another option is a user marketplace, so you can come up with an actual fair market value for the item...although in that case you'd want a constant stream of new (and better) items to drive values down over time. Or you could link the item to some kind of physical good -- perhaps a special card with a redemption code which gets reactivated if the account is deleted. That way you can resell those cards to other players and WotC wouldn't have to get involved at all. But as long as the items are still just as valuable five years later as they were when you first purchased them, then it's reasonable to want a full refund for that purchase. Or I guess they could offer a warranty and give refunds within that warranty window.
If companies are going to sell digital goods, they really need to consider how to handle refunds. Especially if those digital goods can only be used on their servers with their permission. Any item that fails to be usable for the intended purpose is defective and should be refundable, regardless of whether that good is physical or virtual.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:46PM
I think those are good ideas. However, it seems unlikely that (at least in the current environment) that sellers of such items will voluntarily liberalize their contract terms absent a legal requirement that they do so.
I imagine that much of this would hinge on legal precedent regarding digital items and the first sale doctrine [wikipedia.org]. When we pay for such items, do we actually own them or are they licensed [wikipedia.org] to us? If the latter, what are the *terms* of such a license?
This is especially important in circumstances like this, as the in-game purchases are useless outside the context of the game, as I (snarkily) alluded to in another post [soylentnews.org]:
The "remedy" I suggest, while it quite literally provides the user with the "objects" purchased, is completely worthless in practical terms.
Should this guy choose to file suit over the in-game purchases, it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If the agreement governing those sales do not meet the requirements as "licensed" goods, then he will likely have a good case for a refund. If, however, the objects are deemed "licensed" then the license agreement will likely cover whatever remedies are available to him.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr