How many times does it have to be explained to you that street dates are not codified in law and consumers are not bound by them?
If you're right, cite the damn law.
*sigh*
Look though my post history and you'll see that I have. It's just that no one has bothered to actually respond to the point.
I even included a link to a nice layman's explanation in the OT.
If you want to look it up, crack open any law book and read about tortious interference with a contract. It's long established common law in the U.S. (so would apply to Skel's situation).
Keeping it short, you're not allowed to induce another to break a pre-existing contract with a third party. That's why Skel's interaction with the retailer is the key point and why it's what my posts on the situation have focused on.
By convincing the clerk to break street date and sell him the copy of Halo 4 early, Skel was knowingly working to get that store to break its contract with Microsoft. It's that specific action which creates the tort, not the actual sale.
Typically, restitution involves preventing the tortfeasor from benefiting from the situation they caused.
You apparently completely misunderstood what I wrote: I thought the fact that you brought up tort law was (and still is) irrelevant to this situation. Is there even any precedence of tort law being applied in such a manner or being applicable to this case? I'm highly doubtful.
But I don't even care, because MS banning someone over playing a game early and then demanding proof of ownership for playing a retail copy is absolutely inappropriate. Piracy is a problem MS has to deal with themselves, not something they should fight on the backs of their customers.
I brought it up because all of the known facts (as posted in the OT) fit perfectly with Skel's situation. If you think I've misread something and there's an error in the reasoning, by all means, please point it out.
The one point where I can see reasonable disagreement is the length of the ban. Absent the ToS (which gives MS the ability to do as it pleases), one could argue that the proper response under the tort would be to simply ban Skel for a month (or alternatively to ban him from Halo 4's MP) as that would have prevented him from benefiting.
Since nothing posted by him shows malice or an intent to harm MS, punitive damages wouldn't be applicable and there is an argument to be made that permanently banning the account and the console is punitive.
I suppose you could try to argue that there is no actionable tort when someone is interfering with an illegal contract, but showing that contracts regulating street dates are illegal would be a massive uphill battle. I'm not even sure where I would start if I were attempting that angle.
I've got nothing against people disagreeing with existing law. Hell, there's plenty of laws that I find morally and ethically repugnant myself. But just because we disagree with them doesn't mean they are invalid. That only happens by getting them changed.