Abandon4093 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
No, as I said, the lender can make the agreement whatever they want because it's up to the user whether they want to buy it.
I know what they can do, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to.
This practice needs to be eradicated. It's not reasonable to demand things like private information for the right to play a video game. A ToS should be just that.
The Terms of
Service. It should only be concerned with what the consumer is allowed to do with the product/service. Not what the company can scam out of unwitting people.
I don't see any reason why a ToS should be so one sided. Sure it's greedy of them to include all the extra stuff beyond restricting the actions of the user, but still, it's their service and they can charge you what they want for it. Once again, you don't have to buy it. Being greedy in-and-of-itself is no crime. It might be morally wrong on some level but it's hardly illegal nor should it be.
Abandon4093 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
The issue is whether it is hidden in legal jargon, otherwise the consumer can sign away whatever rights they want, they don't have to buy the product. I'm not saying it's right. I don't like it at all. It just isn't a matter of law unless they are doing unscrupulous things in the presentation of the agreement. If you don't like it then boycott it. Use your power as a consumer.
It may be simplified to some degree, but it's still jargon that a lot of people won't fully understand. And as I said to someone else, with any contract, there has to be implied understanding on both parties. It's pretty clear a lot of people who signs these things don't fully understand them.
Mmm... if you say so, I haven't ever seen anything that hasn't used plain language, but I might be underestimating the average person's stupidity. But even so, at a certain point it's still up to the consumer. It isn't the fault of the company that people don't read the agreement before they agree. The fact of the matter is that they still check the freaking box that says "I have read, fully understood and agree to all of the above terms and conditions." No matter which way you slice it people shouldn't be doing that if they haven't read the contract. Now if they did read it and still didn't understand it they
still shouldn't check the box. The only way that it wouldn't be their fault is if they read the thing and thought that they understood it but actually didn't. In that case there is obviously something deceitful in the way the agreement was presented, but I don't think that's the case with most people. I think most people don't bother to read the damn thing, and that's their fault.
Abandon4093 said:
And I'm not buying it, or allowing origin to touch my PC. But I hesitate to call it a boycott. We have very little power as a consumer. We all like to think we do, but in reality, when is the last time a boycott worked, or even happened. The only decider in product quality, that's all that can really influence a large enough amount of people for it to matter. Not shady business practice. And sometimes it's just brand name alone that sells something, not even quality.
You seem to be arguing for something as radical as the fact that the general public is incapable of entering into a contract. I agree that petty user agreements should be able to be consented to without the presence of a lawyer, but that only implies that the language should be regulated,
not the content. There is no way that we should pass legislation that restricts the
content of a license agreement simply because people are too lazy to read it and make unfounded assumptions.
Abandon4093 said:
I still think we should have a regulations board that makes sure these things are as straight forward as they can be for the average Joe and that they contain clauses that only directly pertain to the service or product you're signing it for.
No matter how they spin it. The clause in question is only to give them the right to sell information to third parties. That's not right.
Well... I'll tell you what... I'm starting to see your point. I still disagree as to whether they should be
allowed to include these types of conditions in their agreements, but I'll make a compromise with you and say that we should pass legislation that clearly separates out the negative commitments (like not making copies of the games), and the positive additional clauses like accessing and sharing your personal information into two parts of the agreement. A lot of agreements already do something like this, there are two separate boxes one for agreeing not to steal and one for allowing them to access your data. While they should definitely still be allowed to make you check both boxes before accessing the product, it would at least help protect the consumer and make it easier for them to spot shady crap. How's that?
