JaJa wrote:First point. I never stated that the EULA is why anyone would have reason to sue Joymax. What I was referring to is USA state and federal consumer protection laws that they may have violated. You would be surprised how much protection we all have but we rarely use unless you go digging for it. These protections are default obligations any seller must recognize and adhere to when selling ANY product or service. These vary from state to state, and even nation to nation, so I have no way of giving ANY example of what exact laws have been violated. But I am pretty certain most nations provide protections or insurance of refund and/or grievance compensation when they have paid for a product.
This entire thread was kicked off by someone saying they want to sue JoyMax over the company's failure/refusal to enforce the Operation Policy/EULA.
JaJa wrote:Second point. I was not implicating that we pay for our access to SRO with Item Mall purchases.
Me: No one pays to play SRO. If you think purchasing Item Mall items is the same thing as paying for access to the game, you are stupid.
You: Virtual goods, such as those purchased from the Item Mall, are paid for with cash. The money given to JoyMax is payment, not a donation
JaJa wrote:Again, the only thing I was pointing out was those that purchased Silk and obtained items that they were not able to use have some ground to potentially file suit. Selling an item they cannot use because they are blocked from accessing the service by JM (Server is full messages are technically speaking Joymax limiting your access to the service) and NOT providing a refund for the unused portion MAY violate state and/or federal law where the customer resides.
I believe that JoyMax has more than sufficiently covered their tails in that event. Again, I think it is rather low of them to cheat folks like that, but I do not believe there is anything to be done about it.
JaJa wrote: In the portion you quoted I was unsure of exactly what you were stating, so I made an assumption,
Don't do that anymore. I have no problem clarifying things for people, even when I think they should be obvious to everyone. Just keep in mind that I have no beef with anyone here. It's the position that I am attacking, and I will do so aggressively.
JaJa wrote:I also took that opportunity to dispel the false notion I saw in this thread that your Silk purchases are donations, which is false (at least in the USA).
Fair enough. I do not think Item Mall purchases are donations, either. I, perhaps, gave the audience too much credit and assumed they would already realize that.
JaJa wrote:I didn't think OJ would ever get acquitted, but he did.
Don't bring up OJ. Painful memories. Jury stacking, racism (going BOTH ways), prosecutors' budding romance, Cochran's circus, Kato's clown show....all those things stacked up like the planets aligning to make for a one in a trillion event.
Although, poetically, he
is paying for it right now, isn't he? Karma can be a real bitch sometimes.
JaJa wrote:Fourth point. I will again state that the EULA is irrelevant to this discussion.
Again, OP wants to sue JoyMax for violation of what he believes is a contract, which in fact is an EULA
JaJa wrote:Fourth sub-point: The EULA you must agree to when creating a new account actually invalidates itself, within the first few lines. I was looking at it last night and noticed the hole. I won't go any further into this, but take a closer look at the ToS and EULA on their site when signing up, put your brain into technicality mode, and examine carefully. It is a huge glaring hole. Technically NO ONE has actually agreed to any TOS for iSRO. And technicalities really do matter in these sorts of agreements.
For all I know, you could be sending me on a wild goose chase, but just because I trust you are not a complete jackoff, I looked anyway. If you are referring to
2. Use agreement shall be made in terms of ID.
you should look at what comes below it:
3. User’s character ID is tied to the user directly.
So in the event that number three can be dismissed on a technicality, it still doesn't do anything for the consumer. The agreement was made between JoyMax and PotMan420, not JoyMax and Samuel Harrison (both the ID and name are fictitious...if they belong to you or anyone you know, it is purely coincidental). That means if anyone can bring a legal grievance against JoyMax and before a court, it will have to be PotMan420. Any complaints from Samuel Harrison are irrelevant.
If the loophole you are talking about is
Provided that the Company has reasonable grounds and is in accordance to relevant laws, the Company has the right to change all or portion of the terms of this agreement. Any important modifications will be notified to the users through the game website 'Silkroad Online' (
http://www.silkroadonline.net) in advance and it will be effective from the date in the notification.
and you are implying that JoyMax cannot suddenly change the agreement to whatever suits them either because of "relevant laws" or the clause in Article 2.4 (look it up, people; I gave you its location) it still does not good. "Relevant laws" I'm sure are Korean laws. And if US (or other laws) apply, this is why I say it the idea's stupidity is exclusive of its inability to be won; JoyMax would probably close up the San Jose office (and really, why shouldn't they? They're wasting money on those slouches who don't do anything) to avoid the suit, and be wary of US players from that point on. That is, if the suit is filed in the US, by US residents.
If neither of those are what you were talking about it, you'll have to post it yourself. My legs are tired and wild geese can move fairly quickly, you know.
JaJa wrote:Fifth point. I was not trying to compare cash-back protection to the equal to child-labor and other such things mentioned in your response. What I said was that we do not have a free-market system that is buyer-beware, because of how it has been and continues to be abused. The consumer protections are one of the end results of that.
Then what was the point of the statements in bold:
JaJa wrote:BTW, the USA is NOT a free-market system. That went out in the early 1900's when we saw just what happens in those situations (7 day workweek, for less than min wage, kids losing arms in machinery, and all of the other horrors of sweatshops). Companies do not have free rein to do anything they wish, buyer-beware. We have a hybrid system with consumer protections built in.
Intentionally or not, you have expressed those two elements are being part of a single idea:
-The United States does not have a free-market system
-This is because of 7 day work weeks, insufficient wages to live on, children losing limbs in machinery, and other grotesquely negative features of sweatshops.
-Ergo, our system has consumer protections built in.
That is how I understood what you wrote. If I misunderstood it (and it appears I have, after reading your sentiment), then you must at least admit it was expressed vaguely enough for my conclusion to be considered valid.
JaJa wrote:What you describe is a hotel. If a hotel advertises a clean, spacious rooms, and so you show up, pay for 28 days of stay time, and then find out that it is not clean, not spacious, and 7 out of the 28 days you cannot get into your room because they have changed the lock and rented your room to someone else, then YES, you as a customer have every right to sue them for the time you paid for and didn't receive, and if this happened often enough the state attorney general would most likely file suit against them on behalf of the state for deceptive advertising and fraud. This type of action DOES sometimes happen, although it is rare because 95% of businesses in the USA abide by the consumer protection laws in fear of being sued.
No, it is not a hotel. Do not add more to the scenarios to suit your conclusion. JoyMax is your friend from church, the local bar, or Rex Kwon Do class. He is talking about the new house he has purchased, which is in fact a house, and has invited you to stay over, free of charge, for whatever reason I'll let you decide. In scenario 1, he is selling you girlscout cookies, which has nothing to do with the condition of you being at his house. He is also tolerating ADFDFDF's horrible behavior. In scenario 2, he has a large, but slummy house. You have purchased the cot from him to sleep on, and he transfers ownership of it to you. In scenario 3, you have paid him for the use of his own bed for a night while he goes off and gets lost exploring his ridiculously large house which could only exist in a hypothetical situation. In none of these scenarios do you pay JoyMax for the opportunity to spend 24+ hours in his house. Not only did you change the conditions of the scenarios, you created your own scenario and used it as reference to answer my questions about the scenarios already given!
?
