[QUOTE=Red scout?;32485755]Isn't that illegal?[/QUOTE]
It is.
If it's tested, it's going to get shot down by the Supreme Court for violating the Sixth Amendment.
As far as I know these additions have no effect in many European countries either. My sister once signed an EULA where she unknowingly agreed to pay like 90 euros every month, and they never managed to get a cent off us. Hiding important things like this that the customer should know about in your EULA doesn't fly here.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;32488685]I don't understand, do people actually read terms of agreements?
Like, when installing a videogame? Because I've yet to find a reason to read it, it's not like I'm violating the terms in any way by just using the product as intended.[/QUOTE]
You're the kind of person that allows them to get away with this shit.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;32491066]You're the kind of person that allows them to get away with this shit.[/QUOTE]
Not to say I'm agreeing with Gekko, because I'm not.
But when you read through the entirety of the ToS (Which I'm assuming you do because you are clearly upset that he doesn't) And you find some absolutely reprehensible clause like this, I'm assuming the first thing you do is call your lawyer, right?
You completely refused this ToS and said [I]I disagree[/I] because that's just so horrible words can't even describe.
If you didn't do that, you can't toss a single god damn stone, because reading it and not reading it makes no difference if you don't act upon it either way, because if you didn't challenge it, you're letting them get away with it. If you accept it, you're letting them get away with it. If you click disagree and just went along with your day you're letting them get away with it.
Is it a very good clause from the standpoint of the consumer? Hell no. But the whole point is to protect them from liability, and when you're a company as big as a major developer/publisher, you're open to a lot of liability. They are acting in self interest, and if they have terms that you don't agree with, don't click agree.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;32491066]You're the kind of person that allows them to get away with this shit.[/QUOTE]
So, you mean almost every sane human being on the planet who doesn't have the knowledge to understand Legalese, just wants to play their game, or honestly doesn't give a shit are the problem? The problem is the companies don't make the ToS/ EULA user-friendly enough for them to [B]want[/B] to read it.
Gotta love that about Quebec: they don't fuck around and generally put clauses in law specifically to guarantee consumers certain rights, like [I]being able to use the justice system.[/I]
[QUOTE=Demache;32489570]Once again, its written like that on purpose.[/QUOTE]
Not really. the EULA and TOS tends to be fairly easy to read just long and dry. That's due to the fact that a contract must abide certain minimum linguistic requirements in order to not be completely destroy able in the hands of a semi decent lawyer.
Just about every contract will be similarly constructed. It doesn't exist to discourage you, but to protect the contract in a sense.
That said, in most EU nations the legal standing is such, that you as a consumer cannot even agree to a limitation of your rights when dealing with a business. In part because consumers so rarely read contracts and because the business is the one with the power.
So if this were present in a European nation, you might get two two results.
a) Either the EULA is completely invalidated or which is more likely merely the conflicting areas are invalid.
[quote]
[INDENT=3]So, you mean almost every sane human being on the planet who doesn't have the knowledge to understand Legalese, just wants to play their game, or honestly doesn't give a shit are the problem? The problem is the companies don't make the ToS/ EULA user-friendly enough for them to [B]want[/B] to read it.
[/INDENT]
[/quote]
In most cases it's not legalese. But it's written extremely factual. Hence if you actually read it, you would understand it. But it's so boring that most people don't read it. Same goes for the majority of laws. Hell legal speech is often very easy to understand without almost any effort. It's just boring due to necessity. Likewise it has to be written or said in such a way that the "normal" person can understand it, else you can argue that you were unable to agree to the contract as you could not have an option to understand it.
Now court argumentation is different as that only happens inside the legal community so it's rife with various profession specific terms. But that's true for every single professional community.
For the record, reading that small exerpt from the Valve TOS it's actually far less severe. They do not limit you to sue them or force you to hold them harmless, but merely for issues that arise from the contract, steam promotion and usage and a few other things. Would need to take a closer look at the whole thing.
But it's more or less the kind of protection in which you cannot sue them for a steam outage that prevented you from playing something. But it's not something that would bar you to sue them if you bought something and they didn't enable it.
[QUOTE=Jsm;32489759]The Valve ToS (specficly the steam subscriber agreement) has various bits about limiting liablity and indemnifying them. Its not quite a "you cant sue us" agreement like EA and Sony's.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with that, but at least its not like EA/Sony, and Valve seems like a very generous developer.
Plus Gabe is a very love-able guy.
I will sue them anyway.
Here's the apple thing WTF
[QUOTE]You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons. [/QUOTE]
Why is everyone going crazy over this? I'm pretty sure this is in many, many ToS's. I swear I've even seen a couple of other threads on Facepunch complaining about this exact thing in the last month.
Oh who gives a shit, why the fuck would anyone just sue the company anyway? Seriously, what reason could you possibly have to sue them?
[QUOTE=simkas;32493395]Oh who gives a shit, why the fuck would anyone just sue the company anyway? Seriously, what reason could you possibly have to sue them?[/QUOTE]
For doing something illegal?
[QUOTE=Crawfordo;32493705]For doing something illegal?[/QUOTE]
I think there's a really big assumption that because there's a clause like this, companies just go haywire breaking the law all over the place and getting away with it. That's not how it works.
[QUOTE=stepat201;32493333]Why is everyone going crazy over this? I'm pretty sure this is in many, many ToS's. I swear I've even seen a couple of other threads on Facepunch complaining about this exact thing in the last month.[/QUOTE]
Lots of companies are doing this for some reason, and we're freaking out because it's taking away your rights as a consumer.
[QUOTE=Crawfordo;32493705]For doing something illegal?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure a multi-billion dollar company that owns a large slice of the gaming industry is going to break the law.
[QUOTE=stepat201;32494982]I'm sure a multi-billion dollar company that owns a large slice of the gaming industry is going to break the law.[/QUOTE]
It's not always the law that gets broken but "good moral". Which in commerce law is a pretty big damn thing. The otherOS removal issue and stuff like that.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;32486753]Who cares about the terms of service anyway you are not supposed to read, just click accept and play the game / use origin as you please.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7344169/sheep.png[/IMG]
How long will it take someone to sue about not being able to sue them?
[QUOTE=zzaacckk;32496116]How long will it take someone to sue about not being able to sue them?[/QUOTE]
You can't sue for that, any company or even small business (such as a restaurant) is allowed to say that you can't sue them. It doesn't mean you can't sue them if they screw up royally, but you can't sue just for them saying you can't sue.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;32489795]Yeah.. right.
I'll take my chances.[/QUOTE]
Enjoy getting sued out of everything you own
I'm pretty sure stuffing EULAs with language like that is illegal, or at least won't hold up in court.
Wow, they are Sony now?
[QUOTE=lolo;32497222]Wow, they are Sony now?[/QUOTE]
They've always been worse then Sony
and still are
[QUOTE=simkas;32493395]Oh who gives a shit, why the fuck would anyone just sue the company anyway? Seriously, what reason could you possibly have to sue them?[/QUOTE]
Lets talk entirely hypothetically and not at all reference any real events. Say a company (such as EA) holds my credit card details and they are hacked due to their complete lack of network security and my credit card details end up on the internet. Are you saying that I should not sue them?
[QUOTE=Sylerr;32493244]Here's the apple thing WTF[/QUOTE]
I can't work out if they just extended that bit as a joke or if they really felt the need to specificity mention it.
[QUOTE=Contag;32485878]
Assumed the United States was a developed and civilized country?
[B]ASSUMED WRONG[/B][/QUOTE]
As an American, I have to ask you:
Did you [i]really[/i] think that about us?!
[QUOTE=Dacheet;32497332]As an American, I have to ask you:
Did you [i]really[/i] think that about us?![/QUOTE]As a Minnesotan I definitely think that about the rest of the United States.
Especially Wisconsin.
Our hated enemy.
>:(
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;32497645]As a Minnesotan I definitely think that about the rest of the United States.
Especially Wisconsin.
Our hated enemy.
>:([/QUOTE]
Don't be hatin' on the badgers son
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32497139]I'm pretty sure stuffing EULAs with language like that is illegal, or at least won't hold up in court.[/QUOTE]
It won't hold up in court if a serious issue is brought forth, but it's totally legal and commonplace to put it in the ToS.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
