Don't you think its possible (in either case) that maybe the plantiffs (consumers) may have payed for a service and thought "I am not getting a fair deal?"
That's absurd. We only have the rights which our corporate overlords so graciously allow us to have.
Why are you sticking up for the little insignificant humans? The Great and Powerful Amazon will be very displeased.
Whether a mmo company should or shouldnt access data on your computer is irrelevant in a court of law. All that matters at that point is whether the plaintiff can point to a specific law that was violated. It is the legislature that debates the right and wrong of it. After the legislature rules that it shall be illegal, only then can the courts prosecute. Until the day that there is an actual law against it that you can point to on the books, eula's allowing access are legal.
Which is why I strongly feel mmos need to be properly regulated the same as any brick and mortar business. They are selling you a product, they are providing a service, yet there are very few true options to prevent abuse against customers.Especially in the case of games made and ran outside of the country you reside in.
I mean, I find it hilarious that China for example forces any game developer who wishes to target their market to abide by their local laws and to even host servers locally ( such as Blizzard ). Yet no other country including the U.S. does this. Any online service, including but not limited to online games, should be accountable to each countries laws if they open their game/service to that country. For example, Funcom has a U.S. branch, but AO and AoC operate under Norwegian laws due to the main office being there and the game registered there. Darkfall operates under Greek law, which pretty much allows them to do anything without repercussion. So the only real options available for mistreated customers is a charge back as long as they used a credit card, otherwise nothing.
A MMO company with an item shop releases by "mistake" a sword with 99999999 damge per milisecond which is bought by 10000000 of people. When the company realizes the "mistake" (or SOE missmanagment) they instantly remove the weapon from any player and tell ops sorry:D and keep tha moneyz.
Whether a mmo company should or shouldnt access data on your computer is irrelevant in a court of law. All that matters at that point is whether the plaintiff can point to a specific law that was violated. It is the legislature that debates the right and wrong of it. After the legislature rules that it shall be illegal, only then can the courts prosecute. Until the day that there is an actual law against it that you can point to on the books, eula's allowing access are legal.
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc. The is no 'prosecute'. It's a matter of resolving a contract dispute. And, in that case you may not 100% win or 100% lose. The court may decide that some parts of the contract are valid, some are not, and that some items are not even covered.
It can get very complicated and each jurisdiction will have its own 'laws' covering this.
But attempting to veiw contracts as somehow 'black and white' and covered under 'law' is wrong.
... I mean, I find it hilarious that China for example forces any game developer who wishes to target their market to abide by their local laws and to even host servers locally ( such as Blizzard ). Yet no other country including the U.S. does this. Any online service, including but not limited to online games, should be accountable to each countries laws if they open their game/service to that country. For example, Funcom has a U.S. branch, but AO and AoC operate under Norwegian laws due to the main office being there and the game registered there. Darkfall operates under Greek law, which pretty much allows them to do anything without repercussion. So the only real options available for mistreated customers is a charge back as long as they used a credit card, otherwise nothing.
China is smart. The only problem is that China's copyright (and patent) laws are not very strong IIRC(??) and I would be reluctant to set up any kind of business there for that reason.
I assume Blizzard looked into this though to protect their assets.
US laws on software are surprisingly weak for a developed country.
Greece however is part of the EU and operates under EU guidelines
... I mean, I find it hilarious that China for example forces any game developer who wishes to target their market to abide by their local laws and to even host servers locally ( such as Blizzard ). Yet no other country including the U.S. does this. Any online service, including but not limited to online games, should be accountable to each countries laws if they open their game/service to that country. For example, Funcom has a U.S. branch, but AO and AoC operate under Norwegian laws due to the main office being there and the game registered there. Darkfall operates under Greek law, which pretty much allows them to do anything without repercussion. So the only real options available for mistreated customers is a charge back as long as they used a credit card, otherwise nothing.
China is smart. The only problem is that China's copyright (and patent) laws are not very strong IIRC(??) and I would be reluctant to set up any kind of business there for that reason.
I assume Blizzard looked into this though to protect their assets.
Thing with China is most there have a very strong socialist/communist view on IP rights. For example, when Disney filed an international grievance to force the Chinese plagiarized "Disneyland" to remove anything resembling the real one ( he no mouse, he cat with big round ears ), the common attitude of the Chinese public at large was, as one woman there put it, "I don't see what's wrong. They're just characters. Shouldn't everyone have the right to use them?"
US laws on software are surprisingly weak for a developed country.
Agreed.
Greece however is part of the EU and operates under EU guidelines
EC laws with regard to consumer protection are actually quite strong in some cases.
It would be interesting to see that explored more.
I was taking a look at that, and I think they suffer a bit from the same problem as the U.S., by which I mean it seems very few laws/regulations specifically bridge internet business on the same level with physical businesses. Of course, I'm not familiar with the system and I may just be overlooking/missing some things in that regard.
The OP has a point and it is the following: A MMO company with an item shop releases by "mistake" a sword with 99999999 damge per milisecond which is bought by 10000000 of people. When the company realizes the "mistake" (or SOE missmanagment) they instantly remove the weapon from any player and tell ops sorry:D and keep tha moneyz.
Keep tha money lawl. That would never fly. They would have to at least refund your money or give you the option of "Do you want to keep this item after we balance it?" I do get your point though if they were to change the item or delete it and not refund or give any explanation. That's a load of bollocks.
One thing that is being missed by everyone is that, yes Amazon deleted the book but they also automatically and totally refunded everyone's money including the tax. Also this screw up wasn't Amazon's fault, it was the retarded publishing company. You say "How can that be?" Well the publishing company only had the rights to publish the book a totally different company has the distribution rights. It's up to the distibution company to allow things to go on the Kindle not the publishers because the Kindle is considered a distribution service not a publishing one.
It was the publishing company which uploaded the book illegally therefore causing Amazon to forcibly delete the book from the Kindle. Put the fault on who is really to blame and that is the publisher.
Also, this software is set up like this to protect the company not to monitor what you are doing with it. IE. So and so uses Paypal/CC Company to buy a book on the Kindle. Then they have the book on the Kindle but they decide to try and scam Amazon by saying they never recieved the product and refute payment through Paypal/CC Company who refunds the money but then goes after Amazon for their money. However, Amazon checks the little dickhead's Kindle and says "Bullshit he has it on his Kindle we can see it." So they tell Paypal they can either refund the money and delete the book or tell Paypal they got scammed and to go after the little weasel themselves.
It's because of people like I described above why things get monitored so closely. People work hard to bring us products but other people work even harder to rip those people off. Hence why so many products have so many anti-piracy devices to deal with.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
I just saw that a lawsuit was filed against Amazon for deleting an eBook off of someone's Kindle eBook reader. To me, this is something that was long overdue, and I think it will only make MMO publishers think twice before going to town on someone's software. I like this line from Jay Edelson especially: "Amazon.com had no more right to hack into people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment...Technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so. That is 100 percent contrary to the laws of this country."
You really should learn at least the very basics about the law before you comment on anything, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant. Lawsuits like this one are filed every week regarding all types of property management systems. For some reason people who file them can't grasp the concept of renting vs owning vs ( essentially ) leasing.
... You really should learn at least the very basics about the law before you comment on anything, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant. Lawsuits like this one are filed every week regarding all types of property management systems. For some reason people who file them can't grasp the concept of renting vs owning vs ( essentially ) leasing.
But this is where it gets tricky.
Particularly when dealing with software and e-items.
In Australia we have a Trade Practices Act which applies to all items - including software.
Part of that says "You must receive clear title to the goods, including goods bought at auction. In other words, you can expect to own the goods outright and any restriction on ownership should be explained to you beforehand."
When you buy software some EULAs claim that you do not own the software... but was that explained beforehand?
There are also parts of the Act that explain that you are entitled to enjoyment of the goods and the conditions on that.
So, while asking you to register a game or product once might be considered reasonable... requiring a user to do it every single time they play (and even during play sessions) could well be in breach of the Act.
Of course just because you own something does not mean you can do whatever you want from then on either. Copyrights and patents still apply.
Whether a mmo company should or shouldnt access data on your computer is irrelevant in a court of law. All that matters at that point is whether the plaintiff can point to a specific law that was violated. It is the legislature that debates the right and wrong of it. After the legislature rules that it shall be illegal, only then can the courts prosecute. Until the day that there is an actual law against it that you can point to on the books, eula's allowing access are legal.
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc.
Wrong. The only time a contract is invalid is when there is a specific law against it. The court does not decide fair, it decides whether there is law supporting one side or the other.
..... Wrong. The only time a contract is invalid is when there is a specific law against it. The court does not decide fair, it decides whether there is law supporting one side or the other.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
Edit: Try taking to someone about variations of contract - maybe someone who works in the construction industry.
.... No in this case it's very black and white. They violated someone's constitutional rights and destroyed their property. It was the electronic equvalent of walking into someone's house taking a book off their sheves and burning it. There really wasn't a gray area.
Why do i have the feeling (once again zymurgeist) that have not read the whole thread or the article?
The e-book concerned was pirated... so did the 'owners' have clear title? What does U.S. law say about that? If they didn't have clear title then it wasn't their property was it?
And what Constitutional Right are you thinking of? Amendment IV?
..... Wrong. The only time a contract is invalid is when there is a specific law against it. The court does not decide fair, it decides whether there is law supporting one side or the other.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
The basis of contract law is that there is an agreement between 2 (or more) parties. There is law saying that a minor (for instance) may not enter into a contract. There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement. These are not examples of the court taking it on itself to right something unfair, but rather the court is applying established law.
I just saw that a lawsuit was filed against Amazon for deleting an eBook off of someone's Kindle eBook reader. To me, this is something that was long overdue, and I think it will only make MMO publishers think twice before going to town on someone's software. I like this line from Jay Edelson especially: "Amazon.com had no more right to hack into people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment...Technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so. That is 100 percent contrary to the laws of this country."
You really should learn at least the very basics about the law before you comment on anything, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant. Lawsuits like this one are filed every week regarding all types of property management systems. For some reason people who file them can't grasp the concept of renting vs owning vs ( essentially ) leasing.
If it was a rental book, what was the rental period?
If it was a lease, at what point would the lease be up?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The right to remove or add to the Kindle is covered under the user agreement. Yes, they have reserved the right to do so. This is a frivolous lawsuit.
What a clueless post! Did it even enter your mind that a user agreement is only enforceable as only as it does not violate existing laws. In this case multiple consumer laws were violated. Calling something frivolous when you don't have a clue about law is just outright dumb.
..... Wrong. The only time a contract is invalid is when there is a specific law against it. The court does not decide fair, it decides whether there is law supporting one side or the other.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
The basis of contract law is that there is an agreement between 2 (or more) parties. There is law saying that a minor (for instance) may not enter into a contract. There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement. These are not examples of the court taking it on itself to right something unfair, but rather the court is applying established law.
Actually, there are conditions under which a minor may enter a contract.
"Mistake" (in contract terms) covers several things including common, unilateral and mutual mistakes - not merely whether you 'mistakenly signed' an agreement. There is also duress and undue influence.
And while I think of it "There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement."
In this case - it can easily become a matter for a court to decide whether it is in fact an agreement or not.
But, as for "established law"... I presume you are arguing about established precedent?
In that case, as many people will point out, there is still a lot of untested ground in the IT field.
My background, just so you know, was originally in construction. In that industry there are a lot of contracts that are signed requiring parties to complete certain works which subsequently turn out to be far more difficult than planned or go well outside the original (contracted) scope of work. The first step is usually arbitration. Contrary to what many posters here tend to believe, there are many circumstances which can arise that are not really covered by a contract properly.
..... Wrong. The only time a contract is invalid is when there is a specific law against it. The court does not decide fair, it decides whether there is law supporting one side or the other.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
The basis of contract law is that there is an agreement between 2 (or more) parties. There is law saying that a minor (for instance) may not enter into a contract. There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement. These are not examples of the court taking it on itself to right something unfair, but rather the court is applying established law.
Actually, there are conditions under which a minor may enter a contract.
"Mistake" (in contract terms) covers several things including common, unilateral and mutual mistakes - not merely whether you 'mistakenly signed' an agreement. There is also duress and undue influence.
And while I think of it "There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement."
In this case - it can easily become a matter for a court to decide whether it is in fact an agreement or not.
But, as for "established law"... I presume you are arguing about established precedent?
In that case, as many people will point out, there is still a lot of untested ground in the IT field.
My background, just so you know, was originally in construction. In that industry there are a lot of contracts that are signed requiring parties to complete certain works which subsequently turn out to be far more difficult than planned or go well outside the original (contracted) scope of work. The first step is usually arbitration. Contrary to what many posters here tend to believe, there are many circumstances which can arise that are not really covered by a contract properly.
And in all that there is nothing showing that courts decide anything based on their own definition of what is fair. Courts base decisions on laws and previous legal precedents which in turn are based on law. It is not always simple, but it is not whim of the court.
... And in all that there is nothing showing that courts decide anything based on their own definition of what is fair. Courts base decisions on laws and previous legal precedents which in turn are based on law. It is not always simple, but it is not whim of the court.
I never said "whim" - so don't try putting words in my mouth.
But as I suspected - you were arguing about precedent.
Tell me - what is a precedent? Where does a precedent come from?
Would it be based on a decision of a court faced with something which has not been dealt with before?
... And in all that there is nothing showing that courts decide anything based on their own definition of what is fair. Courts base decisions on laws and previous legal precedents which in turn are based on law. It is not always simple, but it is not whim of the court.
I never said "whim" - so don't try putting words in my mouth.
But as I suspected - you were arguing about precedent.
Tell me - what is a precedent? Where does a precedent come from?
Would it be based on a decision of a court faced with something which has not been dealt with before?
I would certainly call it a whim if a court makes a decision based solely on what it feels is fair and not based on precedent or law. And a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is. The court is not making law it is interpreting the law and that is a big difference.
... I would certainly call it a whim if a court makes a decision based solely on what it feels is fair and not based on precedent or law. And a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is. The court is not making law it is interpreting the law and that is a big difference.
So, just to get this clear:
"a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is."
In other words... a court makes a decision based on what they think is a FAIR interpretation of the INTENT of the law?
Edit: at this point I thought it might be worthwhile requoting the original post you are arguing about:
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc. The is no 'prosecute'. It's a matter of resolving a contract dispute. And, in that case you may not 100% win or 100% lose. The court may decide that some parts of the contract are valid, some are not, and that some items are not even covered.
It can get very complicated and each jurisdiction will have its own 'laws' covering this.
But attempting to veiw contracts as somehow 'black and white' and covered under 'law' is wrong.
Note my underlining and the fact that the word 'fair' is in inverted commas.
... I would certainly call it a whim if a court makes a decision based solely on what it feels is fair and not based on precedent or law. And a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is. The court is not making law it is interpreting the law and that is a big difference.
So, just to get this clear:
"a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is."
In other words... a court makes a decision based on what they think is a FAIR interpretation of the INTENT of the law?
Edit: at this point I thought it might be worthwhile requoting the original post you are arguing about:
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc. The is no 'prosecute'. It's a matter of resolving a contract dispute. And, in that case you may not 100% win or 100% lose. The court may decide that some parts of the contract are valid, some are not, and that some items are not even covered.
It can get very complicated and each jurisdiction will have its own 'laws' covering this.
But attempting to veiw contracts as somehow 'black and white' and covered under 'law' is wrong.
Note my underlining and the fact that the word 'fair' is in inverted commas.
Ok, my interpretation of the OP is that he thinks that the court decides if the contract is fair, and now I think you are saying that the court decides what is a fair interpretation of the law. Those two decisions are quite different.
I think the problem here svann is that you are arguing the finer points of law.
I am not. I am aiming my posts at the general audience here where there are a number of posters and readers who are under the mistaken belief that if something is written in a contract (EULAs in particular) it somehow over-rides everything and allows the (games / software) company to do whatever the hell they want and it can never be challenged.
I can link you to posts showing this attitude.
My point is that contracts can be challenged. Many contracts (particularly EULAs) contain clauses which probably wouldn't stand up under a decent challenge. Some of them contain totally unreasonable terms which wouldn't survive 5 minutes in a court in most jurisdictions. Some, because they violate local 'laws', and some which haven't been tested yet (no precedent) but would be destroyed if the intent of the law was considered - they are simply 'unfair'.
In Australia there is also a few things you shouldn't say in a contract. My favourite is in employment contracts:
"Nothing in this agreement constitutes a relationship of servant and master ...contractor... not an employee...not entitled to employee benefits..." etc
Apparently this is all fine in the U.S.?
Here, that sort of wording is seen as presuming to tell a court how to do its job... big mistake.
There are a few EULAs that have terms like that I have seen.
One thing that is being missed by everyone is that, yes Amazon deleted the book but they also automatically and totally refunded everyone's money including the tax. Also this screw up wasn't Amazon's fault, it was the retarded publishing company. You say "How can that be?" Well the publishing company only had the rights to publish the book a totally different company has the distribution rights. It's up to the distibution company to allow things to go on the Kindle not the publishers because the Kindle is considered a distribution service not a publishing one. It was the publishing company which uploaded the book illegally therefore causing Amazon to forcibly delete the book from the Kindle. Put the fault on who is really to blame and that is the publisher.
Also, this software is set up like this to protect the company not to monitor what you are doing with it. IE. So and so uses Paypal/CC Company to buy a book on the Kindle. Then they have the book on the Kindle but they decide to try and scam Amazon by saying they never recieved the product and refute payment through Paypal/CC Company who refunds the money but then goes after Amazon for their money. However, Amazon checks the little dickhead's Kindle and says "Bullshit he has it on his Kindle we can see it." So they tell Paypal/CC Company they can either refund the money and delete the book or tell Paypal/CC Company they got scammed and to go after the little weasel themselves.
It's because of people like I described above why things get monitored so closely. People work hard to bring us products but other people work even harder to rip those people off. Hence why so many products have so many anti-piracy devices to deal with.
I just reposted this since it looked like everyone skipped it.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
One thing that is being missed by everyone is that, yes Amazon deleted the book but they also automatically and totally refunded everyone's money including the tax. Also this screw up wasn't Amazon's fault, it was the retarded publishing company. You say "How can that be?" Well the publishing company only had the rights to publish the book a totally different company has the distribution rights. It's up to the distibution company to allow things to go on the Kindle not the publishers because the Kindle is considered a distribution service not a publishing one. It was the publishing company which uploaded the book illegally therefore causing Amazon to forcibly delete the book from the Kindle. Put the fault on who is really to blame and that is the publisher. ....
I just reposted this since it looked like everyone skipped it.
Didn't miss it...just got sidetracked.
I think the big issue is the way Amazon handled it.
They had a couple of options which they could have taken. Sorting it out behind the scenes with the publisher and distributor was a possible option (and the customer's could have been none the wiser). Or, failing that, let the customers in on the problem and inform them what was going on.
Even if that meant that they supplied another copy of the book to the customers (from a different publisher and distributor) and asked the customers to delete the pirate copies themselves - informing them of the potential consequences if they would not / did not in a polite way.
But instead they completely disregarded the customers.
The customer was not a fault. Amazon should have bent over backward to keep the customer happy. They got it half right with the refund. Explaining why (before the event) would have got them a bit further.
The long ranging implications of this are that now Kindle owners are aware (if they were not before) that books can be remotely deleted. That will not only damage Amazon, but Kindle sales as well.
I own a Kindle and the problem was that they removed an illegally published book when notified about he infringement by the copyholder, WITHOUT notifying the person who purchased the book for the reason.
I think they should protect copyright holders. As a kindle owner I want more publishers to publish books electronically and not be afraid to do so.
Amazon should have emailed each person as to the reason why they were refunding the money. That part of it was bad judgement on Amazon's part.
Comments
That's absurd. We only have the rights which our corporate overlords so graciously allow us to have.
Why are you sticking up for the little insignificant humans? The Great and Powerful Amazon will be very displeased.
Which is why I strongly feel mmos need to be properly regulated the same as any brick and mortar business. They are selling you a product, they are providing a service, yet there are very few true options to prevent abuse against customers.Especially in the case of games made and ran outside of the country you reside in.
I mean, I find it hilarious that China for example forces any game developer who wishes to target their market to abide by their local laws and to even host servers locally ( such as Blizzard ). Yet no other country including the U.S. does this. Any online service, including but not limited to online games, should be accountable to each countries laws if they open their game/service to that country. For example, Funcom has a U.S. branch, but AO and AoC operate under Norwegian laws due to the main office being there and the game registered there. Darkfall operates under Greek law, which pretty much allows them to do anything without repercussion. So the only real options available for mistreated customers is a charge back as long as they used a credit card, otherwise nothing.
The OP has a point and it is the following:
A MMO company with an item shop releases by "mistake" a sword with 99999999 damge per milisecond which is bought by 10000000 of people. When the company realizes the "mistake" (or SOE missmanagment) they instantly remove the weapon from any player and tell ops sorry:D and keep tha moneyz.
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc. The is no 'prosecute'. It's a matter of resolving a contract dispute. And, in that case you may not 100% win or 100% lose. The court may decide that some parts of the contract are valid, some are not, and that some items are not even covered.
It can get very complicated and each jurisdiction will have its own 'laws' covering this.
But attempting to veiw contracts as somehow 'black and white' and covered under 'law' is wrong.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
China is smart. The only problem is that China's copyright (and patent) laws are not very strong IIRC(??) and I would be reluctant to set up any kind of business there for that reason.
I assume Blizzard looked into this though to protect their assets.
US laws on software are surprisingly weak for a developed country.
Greece however is part of the EU and operates under EU guidelines
http://www.eu-consumer-law.org/index_en.cfm
EC laws with regard to consumer protection are actually quite strong in some cases.
It would be interesting to see that explored more.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
China is smart. The only problem is that China's copyright (and patent) laws are not very strong IIRC(??) and I would be reluctant to set up any kind of business there for that reason.
I assume Blizzard looked into this though to protect their assets.
Thing with China is most there have a very strong socialist/communist view on IP rights. For example, when Disney filed an international grievance to force the Chinese plagiarized "Disneyland" to remove anything resembling the real one ( he no mouse, he cat with big round ears ), the common attitude of the Chinese public at large was, as one woman there put it, "I don't see what's wrong. They're just characters. Shouldn't everyone have the right to use them?"
US laws on software are surprisingly weak for a developed country.
Agreed.
Greece however is part of the EU and operates under EU guidelines
http://www.eu-consumer-law.org/index_en.cfm
EC laws with regard to consumer protection are actually quite strong in some cases.
It would be interesting to see that explored more.
I was taking a look at that, and I think they suffer a bit from the same problem as the U.S., by which I mean it seems very few laws/regulations specifically bridge internet business on the same level with physical businesses. Of course, I'm not familiar with the system and I may just be overlooking/missing some things in that regard.
Keep tha money lawl. That would never fly. They would have to at least refund your money or give you the option of "Do you want to keep this item after we balance it?" I do get your point though if they were to change the item or delete it and not refund or give any explanation. That's a load of bollocks.
One thing that is being missed by everyone is that, yes Amazon deleted the book but they also automatically and totally refunded everyone's money including the tax. Also this screw up wasn't Amazon's fault, it was the retarded publishing company. You say "How can that be?" Well the publishing company only had the rights to publish the book a totally different company has the distribution rights. It's up to the distibution company to allow things to go on the Kindle not the publishers because the Kindle is considered a distribution service not a publishing one.
It was the publishing company which uploaded the book illegally therefore causing Amazon to forcibly delete the book from the Kindle. Put the fault on who is really to blame and that is the publisher.
Also, this software is set up like this to protect the company not to monitor what you are doing with it. IE. So and so uses Paypal/CC Company to buy a book on the Kindle. Then they have the book on the Kindle but they decide to try and scam Amazon by saying they never recieved the product and refute payment through Paypal/CC Company who refunds the money but then goes after Amazon for their money. However, Amazon checks the little dickhead's Kindle and says "Bullshit he has it on his Kindle we can see it." So they tell Paypal they can either refund the money and delete the book or tell Paypal they got scammed and to go after the little weasel themselves.
It's because of people like I described above why things get monitored so closely. People work hard to bring us products but other people work even harder to rip those people off. Hence why so many products have so many anti-piracy devices to deal with.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
You really should learn at least the very basics about the law before you comment on anything, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant. Lawsuits like this one are filed every week regarding all types of property management systems. For some reason people who file them can't grasp the concept of renting vs owning vs ( essentially ) leasing.
Sinister Savant MMORPG Community
But this is where it gets tricky.
Particularly when dealing with software and e-items.
In Australia we have a Trade Practices Act which applies to all items - including software.
Part of that says "You must receive clear title to the goods, including goods bought at auction. In other words, you can expect to own the goods outright and any restriction on ownership should be explained to you beforehand."
When you buy software some EULAs claim that you do not own the software... but was that explained beforehand?
There are also parts of the Act that explain that you are entitled to enjoyment of the goods and the conditions on that.
So, while asking you to register a game or product once might be considered reasonable... requiring a user to do it every single time they play (and even during play sessions) could well be in breach of the Act.
Of course just because you own something does not mean you can do whatever you want from then on either. Copyrights and patents still apply.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc.
Wrong. The only time a contract is invalid is when there is a specific law against it. The court does not decide fair, it decides whether there is law supporting one side or the other.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
Edit: Try taking to someone about variations of contract - maybe someone who works in the construction industry.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Why do i have the feeling (once again zymurgeist) that have not read the whole thread or the article?
The e-book concerned was pirated... so did the 'owners' have clear title? What does U.S. law say about that? If they didn't have clear title then it wasn't their property was it?
And what Constitutional Right are you thinking of? Amendment IV?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
The basis of contract law is that there is an agreement between 2 (or more) parties. There is law saying that a minor (for instance) may not enter into a contract. There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement. These are not examples of the court taking it on itself to right something unfair, but rather the court is applying established law.
You really should learn at least the very basics about the law before you comment on anything, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant. Lawsuits like this one are filed every week regarding all types of property management systems. For some reason people who file them can't grasp the concept of renting vs owning vs ( essentially ) leasing.
If it was a rental book, what was the rental period?
If it was a lease, at what point would the lease be up?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
What a clueless post! Did it even enter your mind that a user agreement is only enforceable as only as it does not violate existing laws. In this case multiple consumer laws were violated. Calling something frivolous when you don't have a clue about law is just outright dumb.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
The basis of contract law is that there is an agreement between 2 (or more) parties. There is law saying that a minor (for instance) may not enter into a contract. There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement. These are not examples of the court taking it on itself to right something unfair, but rather the court is applying established law.
Actually, there are conditions under which a minor may enter a contract.
"Mistake" (in contract terms) covers several things including common, unilateral and mutual mistakes - not merely whether you 'mistakenly signed' an agreement. There is also duress and undue influence.
And while I think of it "There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement."
In this case - it can easily become a matter for a court to decide whether it is in fact an agreement or not.
But, as for "established law"... I presume you are arguing about established precedent?
In that case, as many people will point out, there is still a lot of untested ground in the IT field.
My background, just so you know, was originally in construction. In that industry there are a lot of contracts that are signed requiring parties to complete certain works which subsequently turn out to be far more difficult than planned or go well outside the original (contracted) scope of work. The first step is usually arbitration. Contrary to what many posters here tend to believe, there are many circumstances which can arise that are not really covered by a contract properly.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Oh really?
So, what about when there is no capacity to contract?
What about the doctrine of 'mistake'?
The basis of contract law is that there is an agreement between 2 (or more) parties. There is law saying that a minor (for instance) may not enter into a contract. There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement. These are not examples of the court taking it on itself to right something unfair, but rather the court is applying established law.
Actually, there are conditions under which a minor may enter a contract.
"Mistake" (in contract terms) covers several things including common, unilateral and mutual mistakes - not merely whether you 'mistakenly signed' an agreement. There is also duress and undue influence.
And while I think of it "There is also law that a contract written in a manner (intentionally or unintentionally) that would fool a reasonable person into mistakently signing, is not an agreement."
In this case - it can easily become a matter for a court to decide whether it is in fact an agreement or not.
But, as for "established law"... I presume you are arguing about established precedent?
In that case, as many people will point out, there is still a lot of untested ground in the IT field.
My background, just so you know, was originally in construction. In that industry there are a lot of contracts that are signed requiring parties to complete certain works which subsequently turn out to be far more difficult than planned or go well outside the original (contracted) scope of work. The first step is usually arbitration. Contrary to what many posters here tend to believe, there are many circumstances which can arise that are not really covered by a contract properly.
And in all that there is nothing showing that courts decide anything based on their own definition of what is fair. Courts base decisions on laws and previous legal precedents which in turn are based on law. It is not always simple, but it is not whim of the court.
I never said "whim" - so don't try putting words in my mouth.
But as I suspected - you were arguing about precedent.
Tell me - what is a precedent? Where does a precedent come from?
Would it be based on a decision of a court faced with something which has not been dealt with before?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I never said "whim" - so don't try putting words in my mouth.
But as I suspected - you were arguing about precedent.
Tell me - what is a precedent? Where does a precedent come from?
Would it be based on a decision of a court faced with something which has not been dealt with before?
I would certainly call it a whim if a court makes a decision based solely on what it feels is fair and not based on precedent or law. And a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is. The court is not making law it is interpreting the law and that is a big difference.
So, just to get this clear:
"a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is."
In other words... a court makes a decision based on what they think is a FAIR interpretation of the INTENT of the law?
Edit: at this point I thought it might be worthwhile requoting the original post you are arguing about:
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc. The is no 'prosecute'. It's a matter of resolving a contract dispute. And, in that case you may not 100% win or 100% lose. The court may decide that some parts of the contract are valid, some are not, and that some items are not even covered.
It can get very complicated and each jurisdiction will have its own 'laws' covering this.
But attempting to veiw contracts as somehow 'black and white' and covered under 'law' is wrong.
Note my underlining and the fact that the word 'fair' is in inverted commas.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
So, just to get this clear:
"a precedent comes from a decision where the law may not be clear but the court makes a decision about what the intent of the law is."
In other words... a court makes a decision based on what they think is a FAIR interpretation of the INTENT of the law?
Edit: at this point I thought it might be worthwhile requoting the original post you are arguing about:
So many people mis-understand that whole term 'law'.
When money changes hands there is a contract. In the event of a dispute, it is a contract dispute. The may not be a specific 'law violated'. It becomes a matter of deciding if the contract was 'fair', valid, etc. The is no 'prosecute'. It's a matter of resolving a contract dispute. And, in that case you may not 100% win or 100% lose. The court may decide that some parts of the contract are valid, some are not, and that some items are not even covered.
It can get very complicated and each jurisdiction will have its own 'laws' covering this.
But attempting to veiw contracts as somehow 'black and white' and covered under 'law' is wrong.
Note my underlining and the fact that the word 'fair' is in inverted commas.
Ok, my interpretation of the OP is that he thinks that the court decides if the contract is fair, and now I think you are saying that the court decides what is a fair interpretation of the law. Those two decisions are quite different.
I think the problem here svann is that you are arguing the finer points of law.
I am not. I am aiming my posts at the general audience here where there are a number of posters and readers who are under the mistaken belief that if something is written in a contract (EULAs in particular) it somehow over-rides everything and allows the (games / software) company to do whatever the hell they want and it can never be challenged.
I can link you to posts showing this attitude.
My point is that contracts can be challenged. Many contracts (particularly EULAs) contain clauses which probably wouldn't stand up under a decent challenge. Some of them contain totally unreasonable terms which wouldn't survive 5 minutes in a court in most jurisdictions. Some, because they violate local 'laws', and some which haven't been tested yet (no precedent) but would be destroyed if the intent of the law was considered - they are simply 'unfair'.
In Australia there is also a few things you shouldn't say in a contract. My favourite is in employment contracts:
"Nothing in this agreement constitutes a relationship of servant and master ...contractor... not an employee...not entitled to employee benefits..." etc
Apparently this is all fine in the U.S.?
Here, that sort of wording is seen as presuming to tell a court how to do its job... big mistake.
There are a few EULAs that have terms like that I have seen.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
One thing that is being missed by everyone is that, yes Amazon deleted the book but they also automatically and totally refunded everyone's money including the tax. Also this screw up wasn't Amazon's fault, it was the retarded publishing company. You say "How can that be?" Well the publishing company only had the rights to publish the book a totally different company has the distribution rights. It's up to the distibution company to allow things to go on the Kindle not the publishers because the Kindle is considered a distribution service not a publishing one. It was the publishing company which uploaded the book illegally therefore causing Amazon to forcibly delete the book from the Kindle. Put the fault on who is really to blame and that is the publisher.
Also, this software is set up like this to protect the company not to monitor what you are doing with it. IE. So and so uses Paypal/CC Company to buy a book on the Kindle. Then they have the book on the Kindle but they decide to try and scam Amazon by saying they never recieved the product and refute payment through Paypal/CC Company who refunds the money but then goes after Amazon for their money. However, Amazon checks the little dickhead's Kindle and says "Bullshit he has it on his Kindle we can see it." So they tell Paypal/CC Company they can either refund the money and delete the book or tell Paypal/CC Company they got scammed and to go after the little weasel themselves.
It's because of people like I described above why things get monitored so closely. People work hard to bring us products but other people work even harder to rip those people off. Hence why so many products have so many anti-piracy devices to deal with.
I just reposted this since it looked like everyone skipped it.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Didn't miss it...just got sidetracked.
I think the big issue is the way Amazon handled it.
They had a couple of options which they could have taken. Sorting it out behind the scenes with the publisher and distributor was a possible option (and the customer's could have been none the wiser). Or, failing that, let the customers in on the problem and inform them what was going on.
Even if that meant that they supplied another copy of the book to the customers (from a different publisher and distributor) and asked the customers to delete the pirate copies themselves - informing them of the potential consequences if they would not / did not in a polite way.
But instead they completely disregarded the customers.
The customer was not a fault. Amazon should have bent over backward to keep the customer happy. They got it half right with the refund. Explaining why (before the event) would have got them a bit further.
The long ranging implications of this are that now Kindle owners are aware (if they were not before) that books can be remotely deleted. That will not only damage Amazon, but Kindle sales as well.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I own a Kindle and the problem was that they removed an illegally published book when notified about he infringement by the copyholder, WITHOUT notifying the person who purchased the book for the reason.
I think they should protect copyright holders. As a kindle owner I want more publishers to publish books electronically and not be afraid to do so.
Amazon should have emailed each person as to the reason why they were refunding the money. That part of it was bad judgement on Amazon's part.