Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Courts Games

Lineage II Addiction Lawsuit Makes It Past the EULA 267

We recently discussed a man who sued NCsoft for making Lineage II "too addictive" after he spent 20,000 hours over five years playing it. Now, several readers have pointed out that the lawsuit has progressed past its first major hurdle: the EULA. Quoting: "NC Interactive has responded the way most software companies and online services have for more than a decade: it argued that the claims are barred by its end-user license agreement, which in this case capped the company's liability to the amount Smallwood paid in fees over six months prior to his filing his complaint (or thereabouts). One portion of the EULA specifically stated that lawsuits could only be brought in Texas state court in Travis County, where NC Interactive is located. ... But the judge in this case, US District Judge Alan C. Kay, noted that both Texas and Hawaii law bar contract provisions that waive in advance the ability to make gross-negligence claims. He also declined to dismiss Smallwood's claims for negligence, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lineage II Addiction Lawsuit Makes It Past the EULA

Comments Filter:
  • by johnhp ( 1807490 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @03:31AM (#33446594)
    ... because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.
  • Big "Uh Oh!" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @03:39AM (#33446640) Homepage

    Yeah... this attempt is very interesting. A Texas company writing a license agreement in a state requiring any legal claims against them be brought in Texas and limiting liabilities in ways that are expressly prohibited under Texas law? Hrm! Either that EULA came from a boiler-plate that originated from out of state (not a good excuse) or they simply thought they could get away with it and got caught. This is rather like the "new patent troll" story where people are trying to benefit themselves through legal means when they actually have no right to claim such.

    I wonder if the pendulum is actually starting to swing the other way now?

  • by Phrogman ( 80473 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @03:50AM (#33446692) Homepage

    Its a good idea when planning a class action lawsuit to ensure that your target actually has any money to be paid out. I think /. likely fails in this regard :P
    I am sure its generating some money, but I doubt its huge...

  • Eaugh. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Securityemo ( 1407943 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:00AM (#33446736) Journal
    So this man played a game for an average of just under 12 hours a day, every day, for five years?
  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:00AM (#33446738) Homepage Journal

    that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.

  • by SudoGhost ( 1779150 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:00AM (#33446740)
    Praying? Can I sue the Church if that prayer is ineffective? False advertising and whatnot?

    The guy suing is almost as stupid as the idiot who sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot.
  • by Facebeast ( 1689358 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:14AM (#33446786)

    More good comes from modern religion than you can imagine.

    War. Racism. Homophobia. Sexism. Indoctrination of children. Rejection of science/reason. Rejection of contraception leading to the spread of STDs.

    So what's the good bit? It better be fucking massive.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:15AM (#33446796) Journal
    It's a stupid lawsuit, but I favor any ruling that weakens the EULA. Those things are near-evil.
  • by mcvos ( 645701 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:32AM (#33446856)

    Peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, taking good care of your family, critical thought, responsibility.

    I'm sure you can find something in that list that should appeal to you.

  • by Issarlk ( 1429361 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:44AM (#33446898)
    Why do you describe buddhism when we are talking about religion?
  • by ZeRu ( 1486391 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:48AM (#33446908)

    Check The Ten Commandments. Neither of the stuff you mentioned is approved there. Everything you mentioned is a byproduct of abuse of religion. If there were no religion, people would find another excuse to be racists or homophobes. After all, communists also did most of the things you mentioned and they rejected religion.

    And don't give me that crap "communism is good in theory, it's the power-hungry people who abused it". The same can be said for religion. As I said, just check The Ten Commandments. Especially those saying that you should not kill, rape or steal.

  • by PieterBr ( 1013955 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:49AM (#33446910)
    The woman suing Mc Donalds wasn't stupid. A: she got quite a lot of cash out of it, and B: the reason why she won the case was that was shown that Ms Donalds put profit before safety. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]
  • by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @04:51AM (#33446916) Homepage

    I can have more of that without religion than with it.

    peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist, since there's no "promised land" to fight over, no divine commands to wage war that would otherwise not be necessary. There's no holy war, and no infidels to conquer or convert, no crusades to wage. Certainly, war doesn't disappear completely if you remove religion, but the amount of reasons to wage it shrinks considerably.

    acceptance: of what you mean more specifically? But generally I'm a very "whatever floats your boat" kind of person. I think that all victimless crimes should be decriminalized. Religion isn't very accepting of many kinds of those, though.

    equality: The bible isn't big on this, especially regarding women, who for instance may not speak in church (Corinthians 14:34). Religion is very much coming in conflict with equality. For instance, the opposition to gay marriage and ordaining women.

    taking good care of your family: I don't think there's been a single society on this planet that thought differently. Of course the standards for what "taking good care of your family" means exactly vary widely, but everybody seems to agree on that it's a must.

    critical thought: right. Critical thought and blind obedience are mutually exclusive. Did Abraham exericse a lot of critical thought in pondering whether to sacrifice his son? Now of course he was stopped at the last moment, but the whole event is a show of the complete lack of any kind of thought. When told to sacrifice he does, and when told to stop he does.

    responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 02, 2010 @05:10AM (#33446994)

    Critical thought is frowned upon in religion it is not encouraged. This is practically the definition of faith.

    Parroting "evolution is JUST a theory" is not critical thought.

    Atheist are perfectly capable of embracing peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, familial care, critical thought and responsibility. They do this because of a personal ethic, not because they are afraid of the wrath of an invisible monster.

    Speaking broadly and drawing from all of the Abrahamic religions; war, racism, homophobia, sexism, indoctrination, anti-reason, and anti-contraception are all practically sacraments.

  • by TFAFalcon ( 1839122 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @05:27AM (#33447058)

    responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.

    You can do anything you want, as long as you confess it to a priest later and say you're sorry. If you do that all the consequences go away.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 02, 2010 @05:27AM (#33447062)

    That's just the MSG my friend. The food is not delicious.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 02, 2010 @05:38AM (#33447102)

    I'd argue that they're full evil - assuming my understanding of contract law is accurate (and it may very well be wrong).

    Contract law requires that the terms of the contract be present before someone purchases the good/service. With software, you get hit with a nice big EULA long after the purchase. They want it both ways: They want to restrict what you can and can't do with their software and have contractual protection against breaches, but they don't want the burden of having to tell people that up front and they don't want to have the clauses that indicate what a consumer can do if the contract is breached. You can't even return opened software in most brick and mortar stores, so if you don't agree to their "contract" clauses, you're left with no remedy other than "go fuck yourself."

    Contracts are supposed to address remedies for breach, supposing, for example, the company decides unilaterally to change the agreement (they do this all the time), you should be bound by the terms that you agreed to, not the new terms. Most of the time, they won't even let you use the service or software until you agree to the new terms, basically holding your purchase hostage. Of course their "contracts" don't define any remedies there.

    Personally, I think this situation is all FUBAR. Right now, they take the parts that are convenient and reject the parts that aren't. I'd love for somebody to get hit with a huge lawsuit so some sanity comes back to this one-way gravy train - or to learn why I'm wrong. Either would be good, because it makes no sense from the way I'm seeing it.

  • by notknown86 ( 1190215 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @06:25AM (#33447272)

    If EULAs were written in plain language, and required that you sign them at the time of purchase, they'd be fine. But all of the "by opening this software" EULAs are bullshit by definition.

    They don't do that anymore because people starting reconsidering the purchase when they hit the "first born child" and "immortal soul" clauses...

  • by Dhalka226 ( 559740 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @07:19AM (#33447542)

    With all due respect, stop being a fucking moron. Nobody here has suggested killing all Christians. Nobody here has suggested burning a church, much less all churches. To not only ascribe nonsense to people but declare it to be some sort of sexual thrill for them has to make you one of the most shallow, despicable excuses for a human being I have ever seen in my life. One who obviously has nothing intelligent to say, so he just makes shit up to attack as it pleases him . I'm sure you sleep awfully well at night having defeated your invented evils, don't you? Must be awfully hard to lose an argument when you just decide what the other side thinks and says and declare it to be truth.

    For example, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

    Are you truly so dense that you can't separate politics and religion? Lots of people hate Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, and it has nothing to do with their religion. It has to do with their politics.

    Even if you don't desire death of every religious person, don't you think that some people deserve to be killed? [. . .] I'm sure that most of the Internet would gloat joyfully if either of those people die.

    I'm sure many of them would. What the fuck is your point?

    All else aside, if you can't understand the difference between not caring if somebody dies or feeling the world is better off for it and actively suggesting they should be killed or killing them... well, I was going to ask how dense you could possibly be but at this point the question is becoming rhetorical.

    I would consider somebody like Rush Limbaugh dying to be one of the better things to happen to this country because of the way he simply whips people into partisan furors to serve his own set of interests. It doesn't mean I wish death on him, and it especially doesn't mean I think he should be killed. If he WERE killed, I would expect the person locked in prison for the rest of his life and declare him a murderer, not a hero.

    If you anti-theists really think that the world would be better without religion, then stop bitching on the Internet and start a war with religion already.

    Yes, because clearly instead of talking about things or making a logical argument ("bitching on the Internet" in your little world) the correct solution is to kill everybody who disagrees with you. Holy hell, you really are a whackjob. Do you honestly believe you're one of the "normal[s]?" Because I have a newsflash for you. You're a fool, as bad as any religious or anti-religious nutter out there.

    For that matter, you need to realize that being anti-religion and anti-theist are wildly different things. Believe in god if you want, I really don't give a fuck. Vapor-lock your lips to some religion's ass without thinking thoroughly about it all and what you truly believe, tell everybody they have to believe what you and your buddies believe, and I have major problems with it and with you. And much as I might think the world is better off without you in it, that doesn't cause me to orgasm to the thought of killing you. Sorry to disappoint.

    Let me clue you in, since you're obviously too feeble-minded to reach these realizations on your own. People who don't believe in religion, who don't believe in God, who don't believe in an afterlife believe that this is all there is. They don't support running off and killing people to any degree more than believers do (there are bad apples in both groups, naturally). They don't support fucking each other over. They believe you should be good and tolerant toward one another because you don't get a second chance. Making somebody's life miserable is unconscionable when you can't pretend to believe that no matter how long they live, no matter what you do to them, they'll "live" an eternity longer in perfect bliss with their creator. Not believing in eter

  • by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @08:39AM (#33448124)
    But, if one doesn't have the ability to read it ahead of time, have it explained to oneself and have the ability to negotiate it, then it's probably not legally binding anyways. The fact that the courts have a habit of finding otherwise is extremely troubling. In my view any contract which requires an attorney to interpret had damn well be dealing with enough money to make it worthwhile for both parties. Buying a $50 piece of software and requiring the customer to spend $200 in attorneys fees to understand because you felt the urge to obfuscate and hide things in the contract is not what anybody of sound mind would consider acceptable behavior.
  • by ooshna ( 1654125 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @08:47AM (#33448196)

    No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"

    And how do you not think that organized religions do not have rules to keep people in line? Even if the people in power were corrupt its the religions they used to instill the fear they didn't get all the soldiers to fight and torture for them by saying it was for their culture they told them that it was for their religion and their god.

    Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.

    I don't know maybe the thousands that are fighting for Sharia Law [wikipedia.org]?

    You mean the people who are insane murderers? I'd like to know what kind of religion inspires that kind of murder.

    The one this group [wikipedia.org] follows apparently

    I'm not denying that. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in, rather than renounce that belief. Is that wrong of those people? Or is it wrong of the people who kill them? (You know, the ones in power who feel their power threatened by people who believe something they can't control?)

    sure that's a nice way to look at it but I was more talking about the millions that died in wars in the name of religion.

    That is what Christianity teaches. Or should be teaching. A lot of confused christians keep getting in the way.

    Ghandi once said: "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." (I thought he said it would be irresistible, but this is what Google gave me.) It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.

    You pretty much said it for me religions are not what they should be they are corrupt. Todays religions are nothing more than a political system trying to control people.

  • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Thursday September 02, 2010 @09:35AM (#33448876) Homepage Journal

    So what's the good bit?

    Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, counseling the bereaved, trying to talk youth out of a destructive lifestyle...


    Wars are started by pseudo-religious people who use it for their own personal gain. War is ALWAYS about land, power, control; all are the atithesis of almost every religion on earth.


    Citation? Example?

    Indoctrination of children.

    Depending on the Indoctrination, it can be a good or bad thing. What is so bad about Indoctrinating your children to love one another, to not steal, to be peaceful?

    Rejection of science/reason.

    There are a lot of religious scientists.

    Rejection of contraception leading to the spread of STDs.

    AFAIK that's only ONE (Catholicism) religion out of all the different religions. Besides, what makes STDs any different than any other diseases? If you're going to bash people for not wearing a condom, bash others for not getting flu shots or for going to work or to the grocery store sick.

  • by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Thursday September 02, 2010 @11:10AM (#33450880)

    I find that atheists are the most obnoxious, elitist group of people of any faith. They carry themselves with this air of superiority like they've got the universe all figured out. Agnostics are far, far more open-minded. And yes, atheism is a faith. It's faith in the concept that there is no God.

    These people love to blame religion for all the ills of the world. It's no different than this jerk blaming a game for his own addictive personality. People can get addicted to anything even work.

    The fact is that even if everyone were atheists we'd still have wars, rejection of science and reason, oppression and any other social ill you can imagine. These are human failings not religious failings. Religion is merely a tool. Religion is what gives people justification; it's how people convince themselves they're right. But humans don't need religion to convince themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong. The perfect example? Atheism.

    Religions have helped humans come up with explanations for why things happen, why the world is the way it is. But I think on a more fundamental level religion is a convenient method of conveying a code of morals. Clearly you can have morals without religion, but this facilitates the message and gives people something to strive for. It conveys an ideal. Of course humans also do a good job of corrupting everything they touch, but again that's not a failing inherent to religion.

    When you look at any religion from this perspective they're good for humanity. What are the fundamentals? Don't kill, don't steal and care for the less fortunate. What's wrong with any of this?

    Countless wars have been fought under the banner of religion. There have also been many more wars where religion has not been a motivating factor. Lets not be naive. The ultimate goal wasn't to impose religion. The goal is a drive for power, wealth and territory. Socioeconomic forces drive nations to war. Again, religion is used as the tool to justify wholesale murder and destruction. But even without religion they'd be fighting that war.

    Want to be an atheist? That's perfectly acceptable. It's as acceptable and reasonable as someone choosing to be religious. But there's no need to revise history and make unfounded claims in order to convince yourself that you're in the right and somehow enlightened.

  • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Thursday September 02, 2010 @11:13AM (#33450934) Homepage Journal

    The McDonald's coffee wasn't just coffee hot, it was boiling hot; far hotter than anyone would expect coffee to be and far hotter than coffee should be. You're sitting in a car with a cup of coffee it's going to be over your lap. With normal coffee if you spill it it's going to hurt like hell, but you're not going to need medical attention. McDonald's coffee gave her third degree burns. It looks to me like McDonald's was the negligent one.

    Pizza is expected to be firey hot when it comes out of the oven. Coffee isn't expected to be just a few degrees below boiling; that is, unless you get it from McDonalds. Its coffee is insanely hot; I always put ice in it to cool it down enough to drink, otherwise I'd have to wait an hour for it to be drinkable.

    McDonald's coffee is stupidly hot.

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.