-
New MQ released on 17-April-24 - Problem Report/Discussion Link
Methods to Download MQ:- Download MMOBugs MQ-Live Setup - Full installer download
- Download MMOBugs MQ-Live - Pre-compiled zip download
- Run MMOLoader.exe and apply appropriate updates.
SOE Sued
- Thread starter cudacuf
- Start date
Alexandra
Lifetimer
Interesting lawsuit, it will be intresting to see what comes of it...
"The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
That's pretty vague language.
Not sure if the above statement covers the virtual or online world.
I'm also not sure if SOE games are public, I'd think they are more private since you have to own a subscription.
I don't think this lawsuit will get very far.
Anyway, because WoW and other companies accomodated these 3rd party programs and Sony did not is what brought this forth.
Either way, I really feel bad for people with disabilities, I couldn't even imagine experiencing a non friendly disability world....of course that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to accomodate them, but it'd be nice to do what we can.
"The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
That's pretty vague language.
Not sure if the above statement covers the virtual or online world.
I'm also not sure if SOE games are public, I'd think they are more private since you have to own a subscription.
I don't think this lawsuit will get very far.
Anyway, because WoW and other companies accomodated these 3rd party programs and Sony did not is what brought this forth.
Either way, I really feel bad for people with disabilities, I couldn't even imagine experiencing a non friendly disability world....of course that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to accomodate them, but it'd be nice to do what we can.
Interesting lawsuit, it will be intresting to see what comes of it...
"The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
That's pretty vague language.
Not sure if the above statement covers the virtual or online world.
I'm also not sure if SOE games are public, I'd think they are more private since you have to own a subscription.
I don't think this lawsuit will get very far.
Anyway, because WoW and other companies accomodated these 3rd party programs and Sony did not is what brought this forth.
Either way, I really feel bad for people with disabilities, I couldn't even imagine experiencing a non friendly disability world....of course that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to accomodate them, but it'd be nice to do what we can.
Well since you really dont own anything from eq or any of the other games SOE lets you rent it is public and also, and since its on the interweb it is more public even thought they are paying rent to log into there servers.
Think of this like the Bill of rights if they even say he cant they are not only taking away his bill of rights but everthing that makes him an American, and his American dream as well his freedom to live even thought they didnt make him blind.
so a few games put it in I still dont think every game should have it. If he wins he might as well sue a bowling ally and a casino because he cant play any of those either. Well he can but it would be like closing your eyes and shooting.....
Nope i dont really think thats his plan seeing how he sent SOE a few letters requesting that they help him fix the problem but they just ignored him like they do most of us that request for help in doing some of the simple stuff in game to help us better enjoy it. And if he does lose its another steping stone for SOE or any big companys to do same to anyone that is blind or cant use some parts of there body to better enjoy themself in game or in life.
Villageidiot
Captain Douchebag
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,198
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 0
headed downhill so lets just end the racism part of the discussion. Back to the main subject or thread will be closed/removed.
Thanks
Thanks
Last edited:
agree fat ppl need to walk
i agree with both sides. yes soe is screwing themselves tryin to protect their own greedy behind. yet blind guy sayign hes losing money due to he cant sell virtual good thats kinda bunk too. trading cards are virtual cards basised on a visual game , should hoyal be forced to make cards all with bumps for blind?? then the dealer can cheat and feel the bumps when dealing.defeats purpose of fair play.. in the end i think the ppl who play game will end up foot bill for all the court costs and paying the guy off .
i agree with both sides. yes soe is screwing themselves tryin to protect their own greedy behind. yet blind guy sayign hes losing money due to he cant sell virtual good thats kinda bunk too. trading cards are virtual cards basised on a visual game , should hoyal be forced to make cards all with bumps for blind?? then the dealer can cheat and feel the bumps when dealing.defeats purpose of fair play.. in the end i think the ppl who play game will end up foot bill for all the court costs and paying the guy off .
"Did you see that?" said the deaf man to the blind man.
Well to start out, sony has shot themselves in the foot on this one. This person is trying to use a third party system to help him do something that is past his limits, and sony wont allow this. That is biased, no question about it. Nobody cares about what somebody here or anywhere else WOULD or WOULD NOT do if they were blind. Simple as that, quit your bitching and trying to "walk in somebody else's shoes." Because you can't. This person is trying to overcome his handicap with the help of a 3rd party program which is completely legit, and sony is not making any attempt to let a tool that helps the handicap, bypass there "No, No" policy. Yes, some of US's laws get people F'd in the A but thats the law, and guess what, ITS BLIND TOO! It really doesn't care about what anybody else would do in the situation, just the person who is in the situation them self. As for the guy w/o a leg trying to drive a car spit people keep trying to throw out there. If the car said that using a prosthetic leg was a "no,no" in there policy, something that a one legged person could try to use to overcome his handicap, then i guarantee they'd be sued too. But hell freedom of speech, so keep throwing your selfish gripes out there if you want, its the law, right?
Well to start out, sony has shot themselves in the foot on this one. This person is trying to use a third party system to help him do something that is past his limits, and sony wont allow this. That is biased, no question about it. Nobody cares about what somebody here or anywhere else WOULD or WOULD NOT do if they were blind. Simple as that, quit your bitching and trying to "walk in somebody else's shoes." Because you can't. This person is trying to overcome his handicap with the help of a 3rd party program which is completely legit, and sony is not making any attempt to let a tool that helps the handicap, bypass there "No, No" policy. Yes, some of US's laws get people F'd in the A but thats the law, and guess what, ITS BLIND TOO! It really doesn't care about what anybody else would do in the situation, just the person who is in the situation them self. As for the guy w/o a leg trying to drive a car spit people keep trying to throw out there. If the car said that using a prosthetic leg was a "no,no" in there policy, something that a one legged person could try to use to overcome his handicap, then i guarantee they'd be sued too. But hell freedom of speech, so keep throwing your selfish gripes out there if you want, its the law, right?
SiegeTank
Lifetimer
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,307
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 38
What I want to know is which government pinhead established the % requirement for a parking lot to allocate spaces to handicapped-only parking?
I'm sure we've all tried to park in a big lot where every space is filled except for 19 of the 20 handicapped-only spots? I mean if 99% of the non-handicapped spots are filled, and only 5% of the handicapped spots, I think some bureaucrat has messed up the math.
Don't get me wrong, I have no fundamental problem with accommodating handicapped people. But when the government goes into overkill mode, like in this kind of situation, I think it leads to negative mindsets in those inconvenienced by the excessive accommodating. This is relevant to this EQ lawsuit. I agree that third-party software which permits the blind to play an online game makes some sense. But if the same software can be used by sighted players to gain an unfair advantage over other players then that's a problem and it should be a reasonable basis for Sony to refuse the accommodation.
I'm sure we've all tried to park in a big lot where every space is filled except for 19 of the 20 handicapped-only spots? I mean if 99% of the non-handicapped spots are filled, and only 5% of the handicapped spots, I think some bureaucrat has messed up the math.
Don't get me wrong, I have no fundamental problem with accommodating handicapped people. But when the government goes into overkill mode, like in this kind of situation, I think it leads to negative mindsets in those inconvenienced by the excessive accommodating. This is relevant to this EQ lawsuit. I agree that third-party software which permits the blind to play an online game makes some sense. But if the same software can be used by sighted players to gain an unfair advantage over other players then that's a problem and it should be a reasonable basis for Sony to refuse the accommodation.
DemonH2
Lifetimer
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,886
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Not to mention most people with handicap stickers could cut cartwheels into the store.
How many people have you seen with a handicapped sticker walk into walmart and grab one of those electric buggy things? Very few. Which begs the question...They can't walk 100 extra feet into walmart but can successfully walk around a freakin 5 acre department store?
The bottom line is, I do agree. In some places the handicapped are overly compensated for. Almost every successful handicapped person will tell you, it's about how you can adapt to the world, not how the world can adapt to you.
How many people have you seen with a handicapped sticker walk into walmart and grab one of those electric buggy things? Very few. Which begs the question...They can't walk 100 extra feet into walmart but can successfully walk around a freakin 5 acre department store?
The bottom line is, I do agree. In some places the handicapped are overly compensated for. Almost every successful handicapped person will tell you, it's about how you can adapt to the world, not how the world can adapt to you.
SiegeTank
Lifetimer
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,307
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 38
Reminds of the episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David gets into a fight with a guy in a wheelchair because Larry uses a handicapped stall in an empty bathroom.
Now if a small bathroom has two stalls for crapping, one designed for wheelchair access, and if the "regular" stall is in use, does the rest of the world really have to just wait for that stall, on the odd chance that someone in a wheelchair just might happen to roll into the bathroom and need "his" stall? I mean everyone has to wait in life... even disabled people.
Again, it comes down to reasonableness. If someone craps his pants because he had to wait while a perfectly good toilet sits unused, he's going to harbor a grudge for a long, long time! And every chicken comes home to roost, sooner or later!
Now if a small bathroom has two stalls for crapping, one designed for wheelchair access, and if the "regular" stall is in use, does the rest of the world really have to just wait for that stall, on the odd chance that someone in a wheelchair just might happen to roll into the bathroom and need "his" stall? I mean everyone has to wait in life... even disabled people.
Again, it comes down to reasonableness. If someone craps his pants because he had to wait while a perfectly good toilet sits unused, he's going to harbor a grudge for a long, long time! And every chicken comes home to roost, sooner or later!
Last edited:
In this case, sure. Overall? No. A person with a demonstrated disability would be granted a waiver to the 'third party program' clause (SOE was sued for that several years ago and did just that). Blindness probably doesn't apply for that though.
Bad example. Someone with one leg can drive a manual transmission car with the use of hand controls. Said hand controls do exist and are provided by both car makers and third party companies. I only know this because I have an (adopted) aunt who had no use of her legs but that didn't stop her from buying (and driving) a Viper. Funniest shit ever was seeing a pair of crutches emerge from that car (parked in a handicapped spot at the mall) and people's reactions.
This suit follows the letter of the law but not the spirit of it, which is a serious problem in torts. But if an old lady can get money for voluntarily placing hot coffee (I don't care how hot it was, it was fucking hot coffee) between her legs while in a moving motor vehicle, anything's possible. It should also be noted that as a result of that case, coffee is served at much lower temperatures now (by everyone who sells prepared coffee). So if you liked your coffee boiling hot, tough shit.
But this case will never see the inside of a courtroom. SOE will settle it quickly with no admission of wrongdoing because taking it to trial will cost far more than a settlement would.
wonko
Lifetimer
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I have a question, may be a little off topic but it does concern Sony. What makes it legal for them to keep my money if they ban me? I pay for a service based on a certain dollar amount for a finite amount of time. If through my actions they decide to cut me off before the time is up shouldn't they also refund the difference? Oh well I hate lawyers so I guess I would never sue them over this.
Blitzkrieg
Time Traveling Troll
Unfortunaltly, If your account becomes banned. Your fucked legally speaking.
You pay for the right to have a login, the account belongs to SOE. So when you fuck up by cheating, SOE still let you keep the login you paid for, its just useless, since you cannot login to a banned account.
EULA makes it quite clear that you do not under any circumstance own the account, Hence why account selling is illegal. Your selling something that isnt yours.
Would be nice though, i had a 2year sub on an account and it got banned 2 months in, but to be fair, i was GKing Solteris before any guilds on the server had downed 2gods.
You pay for the right to have a login, the account belongs to SOE. So when you fuck up by cheating, SOE still let you keep the login you paid for, its just useless, since you cannot login to a banned account.
EULA makes it quite clear that you do not under any circumstance own the account, Hence why account selling is illegal. Your selling something that isnt yours.
Would be nice though, i had a 2year sub on an account and it got banned 2 months in, but to be fair, i was GKing Solteris before any guilds on the server had downed 2gods.
Similar threads
