And everyone thought I was crazy for saying "breach of contract" ;ppp
Not as dumb as my parents always said I was aftera... uhm... nevermind
-=B=-
The Rathe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Sniderman" <fuzzbone@...>
To: "EQ Bards" <eqbards@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 7:31 PM
Subject: [eqbards] The Mystere Hubbub
> Here's a potential copyright violation of my own (however I doubt Jason D
> would mind). I very interesting post about this topic on the EQ Vault's
> board. BTW - mea culpa (on blaming Verant for banning the wrong - person)
> evidently - both the rape story and the sacrifice WERE from the same
> individual (who was banned) according to a post on the Backstage Board
>
> Slyde
>
>
>
> Let me start with this. It really frightens me that so many of you have
> quoted Verant's EULA as if it were an ABSOLUTE legally binding document,
and
> that you further defend it as being impenetrable, absolute, and Verant's
> vanguard against any letigious action.
>
> I, in real life, actually AM an attorney, one who specializes in civil
> rights and constitutional law. I've also seen more than a few cases
> revolving around business contract law and licenses, so this is an area I
> can speak to effectively and knowledgeably. Before I continue, let me tell
> you Mystere that if I in anyway had the time, I would represent you pro
bono
> on this case. However, I am currently far too consumed in other pro bono
> cases to be able to give your worthwhile cause the attention it would
> require, though I have passed this on to my firm and my local Bar
> Association group in case anybody wishes to assist you. I strongly urge
you
> on your own to seek counsel on this matter.
>
> Okay, let me start. First of all, Verant's inclusion of a clause saying
that
> they can ban or cancel an account for "any reason" is about as legally
> binding as, well, it's absolutely NOT legally binding at all. I can't even
> compare it to anything because it's ABSOLUTELY not enforceable. It's akin
to
> the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It's a scam, a
hoax,
> a thin veil that attempts to convince the reader that they have fewer
rights
> than they actually posess.
>
> This fact is compounded by Verant's continue modification of the EULA and
> its forcing of you to click "I agree" everytime you attempt to play the
> game. It's tanamount to civil extortion, and I don't know of a single
judge
> that wouldn't toss the entire EULA out in a civil trial.
>
> Let me restate this in simple terms. The EULA for EQ is bunk and is merely
> there so that Verant can protect its intellectual property and to make you
> think you have no recourse should they violate your rights.
>
> Now on to the story itself. Did Mystere violate Verant copywrite?
Probably.
> Is the violent nature of the story questionable? Possibly. Is there a
moral
> question that comes into play because the victim of the story is a minor?
> Depends on your individual morals. Is the story pornographic? Doubtful. Is
> it "kiddie porn" ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>
> As someone posted previous to this, fictional stories about fictional
> characters that do not exist in real life do NOT constitute child
> pornography....at least, not by federal statute, and not by California law
> (which is relevent because that's where Verant is located).
>
> Even if it was child pornography, it doesn't allow Verant to cancel
> Mystere's account. For one, Mystere's posting of this story and her legal
> contract with Verant are mutually exclusive -- one has absolutely nothing
to
> do with the other. For another, it violate's Mystere's First Amendment
> rights. As I said above, Verant probably has a copywrite infringement case
> against Mystere, but since he in no way attempted to profit from this
post,
> Verant would have a difficult time proving civil damages in a civil court.
> This by the way is Verant's only real recourse to Mystere's post --
bringing
> her to civil court. In now way does it translate into a right by Verant to
> severe a business agreement with Mystere, certainly not without
explanation
> or warning.
>
> At this point, Mystere has two real modes of filing civil suits against
> Verant. First, as a violation of her civil and constitutional rights.
> Secondly, as a breach of contract for discontinuing a normal business
> arrangement with her without cause or explanation in a manner that is both
> arbitrary and capricious.
>
> Again, Mystere please seek professional legal counsel on this matter.
>
> -Jason S., J.D.
>
>
>
> Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
with the subject submissions.
>
>