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 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