Support NeoGAF

[PaulLFC]

Except he didn't purchase it, he admits that "they didn't ring it up" and his card wasn't even charged and of course we all know, he didn't have a receipt when he walked out of the store with the game.

He wasn't banned for simply playing it early, he was banned based on suspicion of piracy, he was unable to prove that it was legit, meaning he was authorized to use the copyrighted material. Part of the reason he was unable to prove it is because he wanted to protect the person or party who knowingly sold the game early, based on the fact that the game couldn't even be rung up in the system. Mom and pop shops generally don't even have systems like that.

If he walked into the store, paid for his game and then went home and got banned unknowingly, I'd have a problem with it. But again, that's not what happened here and he has a history of this sort of thing and was not forthcoming with information that could have helped him fight the ban.

That's assuming everything that he says is true, which I still don't believe.

I've said it before, but LIVE is a closed subscription based service that you pay for the privilege to use. It's not a given right. I don't agree with him losing his access to previously purchased content, but I have that same problem with Steam and Origin as well.

You guys are acting like MS charged him with a crime and that he deserves the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. It's their service, they can do what they want. His game is functional, his console is functional, (and he traded it in without disclosing its banned state, so he's as much as an asshole as MS is) he just lost the privilege to use LIVE due to his own actions..

He didn't pirate it. The disc is right there in the OP.

Also lol @ "privilege". They charge you for using the service.

We live in an innocent until proven guilty society, MS evidently either has irrefutable evidence he played a pirated copy, or has a "guilty until proven innocent" policy.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

He didn't pirate it. The disc is right there in the OP.

Also lol @ "privilege". They charge you for using the service.

We live in an innocent until proven guilty society, MS evidently either has irrefutable evidence he played a pirated copy, or has a "guilty until proven innocent" policy.

Piracy means unauthorized use, doesn't mean the game has to be on a dvdr.

Yeah, privilege that you pay for.

MS is not a country or society.

 

[DarkFlow]

Except he didn't purchase it, he admits that "they didn't ring it up" and his card wasn't even charged and of course we all know, he didn't have a receipt when he walked out of the store with the game.

He wasn't banned for simply playing it early, he was banned based on suspicion of piracy, he was unable to prove that it was legit, meaning he was authorized to use the copyrighted material. Part of the reason he was unable to prove it is because he wanted to protect the person or party who knowingly sold the game early, based on the fact that the game couldn't even be rung up in the system. Mom and pop shops generally don't even have systems like that.

If he walked into the store, paid for his game and then went home and got banned unknowingly, I'd have a problem with it. But again, that's not what happened here and he has a history of this sort of thing and was not forthcoming with information that could have helped him fight the ban.

That's assuming everything that he says is true, which I still don't believe.

I've said it before, but LIVE is a closed subscription based service that you pay for the privilege to use. It's not a given right. I don't agree with him losing his access to previously purchased content, but I have that same problem with Steam and Origin as well.

You guys are acting like MS charged him with a crime and that he deserves the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. It's their service, they can do what they want. His game is functional, his console is functional, (and he traded it in without disclosing its banned state, so he's as much as an asshole as MS is) he just lost the privilege to use LIVE due to his own actions.





To be fair, Sony didn't have a problem with piracy at that time, whereas MS has had severe problems since the beginning. And I'm you sure you also paid for the game and walked out of the store with a receipt.

Stop arguing semantics, it's been done to death. He paid for the game, Microsoft has no way of knowing otherwise anyway. There's not some magic chip on the disc that turns on when you pay. He paid by credit card also, and that can take awhile to post. They might have used this to post date his card too.

IF you've ever paid for gas, it can take up too 3 days for it too post on your account from the pump, so by your logic you stole that gas.

 

[Uno Venova]

Piracy means unauthorized use, doesn't mean the game has to be on a dvdr.

Yeah, privilege that you pay for.

MS is not a country or society.

Nope, stealing or reproduction.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

What an all around mess.

I don't believe the OP should have been banned but maybe he should have just sent them the receipt. I understand too he doesn't want to "out" the retailer as they did him a favor by giving it to him early, but perhaps MS just wants proof. Who's to say.

Too bad we don't have any confirmation from MS or anyone else on this matter. Could the OP involve this in an actual legal case?

Edit: For those saying "why should I keep my receipts?" it's always a good idea to hold on to them for whatever purposes that go well beyond something like this.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Stop arguing semantics, it's been done to death. He paid for the game, Microsoft has no way of knowing otherwise anyway. There's not some magic chip on the disc that turns on when you pay. He paid by credit card also, and that can take awhile to post. They might have used this to post date his card too.

IF you've ever paid for gas, it can take up too 3 days for it too post on your account from the pump, so by your logic you stole that gas.

How does Microsoft know he paid for it? A receipt that no one has seen that he provided 2 weeks later on launch day proves that he bought the game in hand 2 weeks earlier?

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Except he didn't purchase it, he admits that "they didn't ring it up" and his card wasn't even charged and of course we all know, he didn't have a receipt when he walked out of the store with the game.

He wasn't banned for simply playing it early, he was banned based on suspicion of piracy, he was unable to prove that it was legit, meaning he was authorized to use the copyrighted material. Part of the reason he was unable to prove it is because he wanted to protect the person or party who knowingly sold the game early, based on the fact that the game couldn't even be rung up in the system. Mom and pop shops generally don't even have systems like that.

If he walked into the store, paid for his game and then went home and got banned unknowingly, I'd have a problem with it. But again, that's not what happened here and he has a history of this sort of thing and was not forthcoming with information that could have helped him fight the ban.

That's assuming everything that he says is true, which I still don't believe.

I've said it before, but LIVE is a closed subscription based service that you pay for the privilege to use. It's not a given right. I don't agree with him losing his access to previously purchased content, but I have that same problem with Steam and Origin as well.

You guys are acting like MS charged him with a crime and that he deserves the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. It's their service, they can do what they want. His game is functional, his console is functional, (and he traded it in without disclosing its banned state, so he's as much as an asshole as MS is) he just lost the privilege to use LIVE due to his own actions.





To be fair, Sony didn't have a problem with piracy at that time, whereas MS has had severe problems since the beginning. And I'm you sure you also paid for the game and walked out of the store with a receipt.

How many times do we have to go over this? Piracy is not what you think it is, Whether or not he gave them money for the title at the time of receiving it is completely irrelevant. It was a legit copy -- and according to him, he had an agreement with the store and they charged him release day.

Over and over in this thread you have clearly shown a lack of understanding...specifically in the area of post dated credit charges and post dated checks. I have paid for plenty of things (with the consent of the seller) using post-dated checks. So please stop. It's clear you are quite naive on how transactions work.

I will say, if he did sell that banned console without telling the buyer then that is a d-bag move. Concerning what MS is doing on the other hand is completely unfair.

 

[cory64]

If a movie theater shows a movie before the release date, the theater gets in trouble, not the audience that paid to see it. The studios will most likely impose a fine and cut them off from future releases for a short period. The audience simply took advantage of the theater breaking the rules, and since no money was unaccounted for, it would be frivolous for the studio to punish the audience. Just going off of what we know for sure (not extrapolating every little thing the OP has said into its own saga) about the situation, I can't really defend MS in any way here.

Lets say that yes, this may be the case. Does that make it okay for these kinds of anti-consumer practices that come from them having control of their network to exist?

I mean come the fuck on. Things will only get worse as we further move into everything being digital and not actually "owning" any of our content. We need to get outraged and protest this kind of shit now, it's the only way to bring on change.

Exactly, it's just going to get worse and that's terrible. That goes for all digital media, what's in place now was set up nearly a decade ago, and that underlying base is just going to get more impractical and consumer-unfriendly going forward.

 

[DarkFlow]

How does Microsoft know he paid for it? A receipt that he provided 2 weeks later on launch day proves that he bought the game in hand 2 weeks earlier?

How did they know BEFORE that? Stop playing mental gymnastics here, this is not the GOP.

 

[Infinite Justice]

What an all around mess.

I don't believe the OP should have been banned but maybe he should have just sent them the receipt. I understand too he doesn't want to "out" the retailer as they did him a favor by giving it to him early, but perhaps MS just wants proof. Who's to say.

Too bad we don't have any confirmation from MS or anyone else on this matter. Could the OP involve this in an actual legal case?

Edit: For those saying "why should I keep my receipts?" it's always a good idea to hold on to them for whatever purposes that go well beyond something like this.

But yet he claims that he eventually sent the receipt under the assurance that the store wont get in trouble so....yea.

Some stuff are not adding up at all here.

 

[PaulLFC]

Piracy means unauthorized use, doesn't mean the game has to be on a dvdr.

Yeah, privilege that you pay for.

MS is not a country or society.

No it doesn't.

The copyright infringement of software (often referred to as software piracy) refers to several practices which involve the unauthorized copying of computer software.
...
Subject to many exceptions, it is a copyright violation to download, upload or otherwise distribute copyrighted material through the internet without authorization.

The OP has done none of those things.

XBL isn't a privilege. It's a service you pay for.

Well unless their TOS state they take a guilty until proven innocent stance, it is a reasonable assumption that they would abide by the innocent until proven guilty policy.

 

[DarkFlow]

But yet he claims that he eventually sent the receipt under the assurance that the store wont get in trouble so....yea.

Some stuff are not adding up at all here.

Lexi has seen the receipt, and says it's legit. I trust Lexi so the ball is in Microsoft court. I also respect the OP for not being a snitch and not fucking over the people who did him a favor even if it did come back to bite him in the ass.

 

[faceless007]

Piracy means unauthorized use,

Wrong, it means unpaid-for use.

If I buy a PC game but can't activate it due to DRM, is it piracy to crack it?

 

[Respawn]

Piracy means unauthorized use, doesn't mean the game has to be on a dvdr.

Yeah, privilege that you pay for.

MS is not a country or society.

This post got me giving you that look man

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

How does Microsoft know he paid for it? A receipt that no one has seen that he provided 2 weeks later on launch day proves that he bought the game in hand 2 weeks earlier?

How does MS know anyone paid for their game? They supposedly have a way to check for illegitimate (aka pirated aka burned/illegally copied games) copies. It's not up to MS to check to see if everyone PAID for their game.

Suppose someone won an early release copy of a video game via a local contest/promotion and didn't have a receipt or anything showing proof except of course a legitimate copy of the game...Why would MS ban them first and ask questions later when they said people won't get in trouble for playing early AND that they have technology to see if the copy is legitimate or not?

 

[Mackenzie 92]

How many times do we have to go over this? Piracy is not what you think it is, Whether or not he gave them money for the title at the time of receiving it is completely irrelevant. It was a legit copy -- and according to him, he had an agreement with the store and they charged him release day.

Over and over in this thread you have clearly shown a lack of understanding...specifically in the area of post dated credit charges and post dated checks. I have paid for plenty of things (with the consent of the seller) using post-dated checks. So please stop. It's clear you are quite naive on how transactions work.

I will say, if he did sell that banned console without telling the buyer then that is a d-bag move. Concerning what MS is doing on the other hand is completely unfair.

I understand just fine, I think you are just missing the point I'm trying to make that he knowingly circumvented the release date along with the store and is a victim of his own actions.

How does MS know anyone paid for their game? They supposedly have a way to check for illegitimate (aka pirated aka burned/illegally copied games) copies. It's not up to MS to check to see if everyone PAID for their game.

And they don't, but I guess they get suspicious when people play the game 2 weeks before release.

Wrong, it means unpaid-for use.

If I buy a PC game but can't activate it due to DRM, is it piracy to crack it?

This is the definition I have -

The unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.

Well I apologize if my grammer was wrong, but I thought a privilege was also something that could be paid for.

 

[PaulLFC]

I understand just fine, I think you are just missing the point I'm trying to make that he knowingly circumvented the release date along with the store and is a victim of his own actions.

So what? I've had games delivered early, did I "knowingly circumvent the release date"? As long as the disc is genuine nothing else matters.

And they don't, but I guess they get suspicious when people play the game 2 weeks before release.

See last sentence above.

 

[DarkFlow]

I understand just fine, I think you are just missing the point I'm trying to make that he knowingly circumvented the release date along with the store and is a victim of his own actions.

Do you even read this thread or just spout out shit you think is cleaver? All the stuff you are saying has already been talked about to death, your not adding anything new. A release date apply's to the store ONLY. As a consumer, I don't have to abide by that at all. If I want to buy the game, and you as the store give it too me before the date, that's on the store not on me.

Capitalism, how does it work?

 

[Darkmakaimura]

But yet he claims that he eventually sent the receipt under the assurance that the store wont get in trouble so....yea.

Some stuff are not adding up at all here.

I thought he sent it to one of the Halo devs and they did something with the receipt and then sent it to MS. I might have read that wrong. Like I mentioned, this sounds like a big mess.

 

[robotzombie]

I understand just fine, I think you are just missing the point I'm trying to make that he knowingly circumvented the release date along with the store and is a victim of his own actions.





And they don't, but I guess they get suspicious when people play the game 2 weeks before release.

What does it matter if he knowingly circumvented the release date when Microsoft themselves have stated time and again that they don't hold consumers responsible for playing a retail copy early?

Nevermind tour nonsense about him stealing and pirating despite the fact that the money he pays a store for a game has nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft ALREADY GOT THE MONEY FOR THE GAME BEFORE ANYONE MADE A PURHASE AT THE STORE. Can you not comprehend that the store itself buys from the publisher, and then sells the product they now own to the consumer? It matters absolutely none if the store waits three days to ring up the game, they ALREADY BOUGHT IT FROM MICROSOFT.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

What does it matter if he knowingly circumvented the release date when Microsoft themselves have stated time and again that they don't hold consumers responsible for playing a retail copy early?

Nevermind tour nonsense about him stealing and pirating despite the fact that the money he pays a store for a game has nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft ALREADY GOT THE MONEY FOR THE GAME BEFORE ANYONE MADE A PURHASE AT THE STORE. Can you not comprehend that the store itself buys from the publisher, and then sells the product they now own to the consumer? It matters absolutely none if the store waits three days to ring up the game, they ALREADY BOUGHT IT FROM MICROSOFT.

My point is he was aware as was the store. No reason to be an ass, dude.

I'm not talking about piracy now.

Do you even read this thread or just spout out shit you think is cleaver? All the stuff you are saying has already been talked about to death, your not adding anything new. A release date apply's to the store ONLY. As a consumer, I don't have to abide by that at all. If I want to buy the game, and you as the store give it too me before the date, that's on the store not on me.

Capitalism, how does it work?

No reason to be an ass, man, I'm not trying to piss anyone off.

See above, store and customer were both aware of what they were doing.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

What does it matter if he knowingly circumvented the release date when Microsoft themselves have stated time and again that they don't hold consumers responsible for playing a retail copy early?

Nevermind tour nonsense about him stealing and pirating despite the fact that the money he pays a store for a game has nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft ALREADY GOT THE MONEY FOR THE GAME BEFORE ANYONE MADE A PURHASE AT THE STORE. Can you not comprehend that the store itself buys from the publisher, and then sells the product they now own to the consumer? It matters absolutely none if the store waits three days to ring up the game, they ALREADY BOUGHT IT FROM MICROSOFT.

I honestly don't think he's reading this thread. We've posted stuff about Larry Hyrb and Stephen Toulouse saying people won't get banned for playing early and that it's the retailer's fault/problem NOT the consumer's.

 

[PaulLFC]

My point is he was aware as was the store. No reason to be an ass, dude.




No reason to be an ass, man, I'm not trying to piss anyone off.

See above, store and customer were both aware of what they were doing.

Well you keep going back to the same point "he knew what he was doing" except:

- There is no law stating it's illegal to buy games early
- MS have (had?) stated they wouldn't ban genuine early copies

 

[robotzombie]

My point is he was aware as was the store. No reason to be an ass, dude.

I'm not talking about piracy now.




No reason to be an ass, man, I'm not trying to piss anyone off.

See above, store and customer were both aware of what they were doing.

No, your point was that BECAUSE he was aware he deserved to be punished, which we are all telling you why you are so painfully wrong and giving you ample evidence that you choose to ignore. The only one being an ass in this topic is you.

 

[Zoe]

Lexi has seen the receipt, and says it's legit. I trust Lexi so the ball is in Microsoft court. I also respect the OP for not being a snitch and not fucking over the people who did him a favor even if it did come back to bite him in the ass.

She didn't say she's seen the receipt. In fact, her contact is the one saying it's been altered.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

No, your point was that BECAUSE he was aware he deserved to be punished, which we are all telling you why you are so painfully wrong and giving you ample evidence that you choose to ignore. The only one being an ass in this topic is you.

I'm an ass because I disagree with you?

You choose to ignore a lot as well, I just try to look at the whole picture.

 

[DarkFlow]

She didn't say she's seen the receipt. In fact, her contact is the one saying it's been altered.

My bad, I thought she had seen it from this post.

I don't want to take explicit sides here, but yes, he did.

 

[DarkFlow]

I'm an ass because I disagree with you?

You choose to ignore a lot as well, I just try to look at the whole picture.

No your a ass because your ignoring 26 pages of this same stuff your saying being shot down like the Luftwaffe during WW2.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Well you keep going back to the same point "he knew what he was doing" except:

- There is no law stating it's illegal to buy games early
- MS have (had?) stated they wouldn't ban genuine early copies

This is where the breakdown is happening. He doesn't understand how these two points completely invalidate the argument "Well he knew what he was doing".

I'll try to help him:

MS: Dear Consumers -- it's perfectly fine with us if you play a genuine copy of a game early. We will not ban you for that - It's not your mistake. Don't worry about it have fun! Though, retailers shouldn't sell you the game early as they should abide by the street date, we realize that nobody's perfect and sometimes mistakes happen. If you manage to snag a copy early cool! We applaud your enthusiasm, go play it and have fun! But we are actively trying to make sure you don't get an early copy through a retailer because we want everyone to play it on the same day.

OP: Well that sounds ace. I guess I'll try to find it early. *Finds and plays a genuine early copy* ....*Gets banned*

Mackenzie: Well he knew what he was doing guys!

 

[Mackenzie 92]

No your a ass because your ignoring 26 pages of this same stuff your saying being shot down like the Luftwaffe during WW2.

I'm hardly the only one going around in circles here.

 

[DarkFlow]

I'm hardly the only one going around in circles here.

Alright I'll give you that.

 

[faust666]

They are not banning people for that reason though, they are banning people for piracy and forcing them to prove otherwise. People who work for Microsoft itself have stated that they do not punish people who play retail copies early.

I think the problem is your definition of not punishing differs from microsofts. Not punishing to you is taking no action whatsoever while not punishing to microsoft is unbanning those who snitch on the store who sold it early.

 

[robotzombie]

I'm hardly the only one going around in circles here.

Yes, because you are forcing everyone else to by repeatedly making the exact same incorrect statements

 

[PaulLFC]

My bad, I thought she had seen it from this post.

Hmm that does seem to indicate that at least someone has seen a genuine receipt. So now MS would appear to have even less of an argument if that's true, why they're not lifting the ban I don't know.

 

[DarkFlow]

Hmm that does seem to indicate that at least someone has seen a genuine receipt. So now MS would appear to have even less of an argument if that's true, why they're not lifting the ban I don't know.

My guess is bureaucracy at this point. They don't want to admit they messed up.

 

[gutter_trash]

punishing a consumer who bought a legit copy early is retarded.
It's the retailer's fault, not the consumer.

Yeah piracy is bad but fuck, but banning people who play legit copies early is a stupid way to

woooo as if everyone knows the release dates by heart

 

[Zoe]

Hmm that does seem to indicate that at least someone has seen a genuine receipt. So now MS would appear to have even less of an argument if that's true, why they're not lifting the ban I don't know.

She was responding regarding a date on the receipt. The general theory is that someone, either OP or Stinkles, obscured the store on the receipt.

 

[chadderbox77]

You really don't get this do you? There IS NO GUILT OR INNOCENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE END CUSTOMER IN REGARDS TO RELEASE DATES. It doesn't matter in the least bit that he knew or didn't know what the store was doing. Breaking street dates is not against the law, it is a personal agreement between the store and the supplier, if they break that agreement it is their responsibility, not the person who purchased the item.

Amen. Time doesn't invalidate his official pressed copy of the game. That's absurd.

 

[Infinite Justice]

I thought he sent it to one of the Halo devs and they did something with the receipt and then sent it to MS. I might have read that wrong. Like I mentioned, this sounds like a big mess.

thats what i was reffering to as sending the receipt but for some reason they are implying the receipt was altered.

So unless the OP is lying about giving an unaltered receipt something broke down at that point.

 

[DarkFlow]

She was responding regarding a date on the receipt. The general theory is that someone, either OP or Stinkles, obscured the store on the receipt.

I don't see why that matters, at all. It's a receipt with a date. Just because MS wants blood from the store for selling and not getting is not grounds for keeping his account banned because of it.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Yes, because you are forcing everyone else to by repeatedly making the exact same incorrect statements

Yup. He'll be back.

 

[Zoe]

I don't see why that matters, at all. It's a receipt with a date. Just because MS wants blood from the store for selling and not getting is not grounds for keeping his account banned because of it.

Regardless of whether you agree with it, that is what Microsoft wants, and Microsoft gets to decide what goes on with Microsoft's service.

 

[PaulLFC]

She was responding regarding a date on the receipt. The general theory is that someone, either OP or Stinkles, obscured the store on the receipt.

I'm not sure why that matters to MS unless they want to take action against the store, but the OP isn't required to reveal the store. Every time I've been asked for a receipt for proof of purchase all it's needed is to show the product in question and the date of purchase.

edit: beaten

 

[sneaky77]

I don't see why that matters, at all. It's a receipt with a date. Just because MS wants blood from the store for selling and not getting is not grounds for keeping his account banned because of it.

if the date in the receipt is 11/06/2012 but the OP got banned on 10/28/2012.. then something is not going to add correctly to whoever is reviewing the case.

 

[Zoe]

I'm not sure why that matters to MS unless they want to take action against the store, but the OP isn't required to reveal the store. Every time I've been asked for a receipt for proof of purchase all it's needed is to show the product in question and the date of purchase.

edit: beaten

So you've had this happen to you before and you've submitted a receipt without the store's name on it to get your account back?

 

[Z_Y]

Regardless of whether you agree with it, that is what Microsoft wants, and Microsoft gets to decide what goes on with Microsoft's service.

And they will continue to do so as long as we take it.

We consumers need to "not take it"...not defend it. Absolutely nuts.

 

[DarkFlow]

Regardless of whether you agree with it, that is what Microsoft wants, and Microsoft gets to decide what goes on with Microsoft's service.

And that's why I'm over on PS3. Sony might be fucked up with a lot of things, but at least they don't hold my Account and PS3 hostage on a whim. I can't even think of a time I've heard of a PSN or PS3 console ban.

 

[robotzombie]

if the date in the receipt is 11/06/2012 but the OP got banned on 10/28/2012.. then something is not going to add correctly to whoever is reviewing the case.

I believe Microsoft themselves told him he only needed a release day receipt, but I may be incorrect.

 

[Zoe]

I believe Microsoft themselves told him he only needed a release day receipt, but I may be incorrect.

Stinkles told him that, not MS proper.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Yes, because you are forcing everyone else to by repeatedly making the exact same incorrect statements

Yup. He'll be back.

What do you guys got dibs on camping out in here and doing the same thing?