Eh, I don't much care for this crap but I'd have to say that I'm with Mr. Fakename on this one.Abandon4093 said:
First of all, there's a difference between a product and a service. Now let's look at the whole PS3 hacking debacle. Now THAT was a violation of consumer rights. A PS3 is a piece of hardware, it is not a service, though there are services associated with it. I'm of the mind that once you've bought it you own it. But in effect the consumer agreement basically says that you're leasing it, even though you've payed one lump sum for it. Furthermore, they leave out that fact until you've opened the box, i.e. have already purchased the damn thing, so you could hardly be said to have agreed to the terms and conditions of the "lease" agreement when you hand the clerk at Gamestop your credit card.
No, once you've bought a physical piece of hardware you own that physical piece of hardware (though you do not thereby own any intellectual rights in regard to how it's made {in other words you don't have a free license to retro-engineer it and use it's designs to sell your own version}). As long as it's for personal use you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
In Geohot's case it's more complicated because he was modifying other people's PS3s for a profit, but even in that case he probably has a right to do so. Last time I checked a mechanic doesn't need special permission from the company to repair a car, though the company has a right to void the warranty if you don't go to an approved mechanic. In fact, that, I think, is a perfect analogy because the car is the physical thing that you own, while the warranty is an ongoing service.
Origin is an ongoing service, and as such it requires a quid-pro-quo, and that isn't simply limited to the consumer paying money. But I haven't touched upon your point yet...
If your point is that the consumer shouldn't have to bear the responsibility of having to read and understand their agreements then, for the most part, you're wrong. By it's very nature a contract requires both parties to understand and acquiesce to the agreement, so the consumer does have a responsibility.
Now, that being said, what should be prevented is predatory practices on the part of the leaser that make it impossible for the user to reasonably consent. This includes deliberately deceitful practices in the agreement, like hiding things in the fine print and using overblown legal jargon that the average person will find impenetrable. However, I don't really think either of those two things are an issue here. Most of these agreements are pretty straight forward if you bother to read them, the problem is that most people are just too lazy. Laziness isn't an excuse I'm afraid.
Now I agree with Fakename that the types of agreements for products aimed at people incapable of providing consent (like 13 year olds) is on the verge of being predatory, the age limit should be much higher, but I don't really see what more can reasonably be done to verify age over the internet.
In a free market system it is ultimately up to the consumer to ensure consumer rights by simply exercising their choice over what they buy. However, we also live in a democratic society, and if we decide that something (say healthcare, for instance) is a fundamental right, then we can exercise our power as citizens to modify the free market. This can, should and has been done in the cases of natural monopolies like energy, communication, transportation and certain commodities. The free market ultimately relies on the principal of consumer choice, and this principle is obviously undermined in the case of a monopoly, so in these circumstances one needs to restrain the invisible hand of the market, lest it get a bit too frisky in the way it handles the consumer.
But this isn't the case here because A) there is still a choice: you could go over to steam or play on the consoles, and B) it is a luxury product and thus the consumer is far less privileged in regard to it.
