13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 13. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 20, 2012, 09:13 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
Nere wrote on Mar 19, 2012, 13:52:
Maybe you don't realize what "conservative" mean these days.
THe exact opposite it did in years past....the 2 parties have actually done a 180 on eachother if you look at history.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 19, 2012, 13:52 |
Nere |
|
|
| Maybe you don't realize what "conservative" mean these days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 19, 2012, 08:58 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
Dev wrote on Mar 19, 2012, 05:02:
Prez wrote on Mar 18, 2012, 20:19:
I'd be interested in the outcome of any that I'm unaware of has though. 3 SCOTUS recent decisions about that being enforceable in last few months have prompted the wave of changes (remember sony and xbox and origin reported on blues?). Any company would be an idiot not to do this given the decisions.
AT&T and Compu Credit, and Marmet Health. I think the AT&T one was on blues.
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/121147/evening-legal-briefs
The Fed arbitration act from congress was basis.
IANAL Wow. That's just one screwed up USSC ruling. Forget states' rights, let's just do what's cheapest/most expedient for corporations. And that's from the "conservative" majority of the court. Guess corporations' rights really do trump all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 19, 2012, 07:22 |
Ozmodan |
|
|
| These terms of service notices with legal nonsense in them crack me up. They know they cannot legally override consumer laws by putting legalese in a TOS, hence they cannot prevent you from sueing them no matter what they write. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 19, 2012, 05:02 |
Dev |
|
|
Looks like many are starting to do this.
This comment was edited on Mar 20, 2012, 06:10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 21:10 |
Bhruic |
|
|
| They aren't aimed at individuals - you'd still have the ability to sue in small claims court. They are trying to stop class actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 20:57 |
Domgrief |
|
|
I started noticing binding arbitration clauses in EULAs a couple of years ago - a quick RTF/TXT check on my hard disk indicates that they're definitely in EULAs for Nero and EA/Origin.
I can see how the combination of recent class actions against video game companies, coupled with what seems to be a prevailing legal attitude of "I don't know if it's legal, but let's put it in the contract anyway," might result in this clause appearing.
It's hard for me to get too worked up about it - even if I had thousands of dollars invested in my Origin catalogue and it was taken away from me unfairly, I'm not sure that I'd bother investing the time required to pursue legal action. Given the limited funds I have avaible to throw at lawyers, it's likely that arbitration would result in a more rapid and equally reasonable outcome than the court system anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 20:19 |
Prez |
|
|
nin wrote on Mar 18, 2012, 18:05:
Prez wrote on Mar 18, 2012, 16:58:
In reference to the Netflix updated user agreement, I have my doubts that it would ever hold up in court.
I've not read it, but based on the headline, isn't that that tech companies (MS, Sony, etc) are going to? Not that I'm defending it for a moment...
Well I'm short on specifics, but I'm certain I've seen it utilized by other companies (I want to say EA..). As far as I know, such a stipulation in an end-user agreement -- one that supposedly removes the end-user's ability to sue -- has not yet been tested in the courts. I'd be interested in the outcome of any that I'm unaware of has though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 18:05 |
nin |
|
|
Prez wrote on Mar 18, 2012, 16:58:
In reference to the Netflix updated user agreement, I have my doubts that it would ever hold up in court.
I've not read it, but based on the headline, isn't that that tech companies (MS, Sony, etc) are going to? Not that I'm defending it for a moment... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 16:58 |
Prez |
|
|
| In reference to the Netflix updated user agreement, I have my doubts that it would ever hold up in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 15:39 |
ASeven |
|
|
Megaupload is criminal, Megaupload is criminal, Mega--
Oh wait, the ones doing proven unlawful stuff has been the police force working as private cops for the entertainment industry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 13:28 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
nin wrote on Mar 18, 2012, 12:55:
In another astonishing development in the Megaupload saga, a judge in New Zealand’s High Court has declared the order used to seize Kim Dotcom’s assets as “null and void”. The blunder, which occurred because the police applied for the wrong type of court order, means that the Megaupload founder could have his property returned.
Delicious!
Wow. Although I find it kind of funny - the US courts have a law that basically says your intentions override the the paperwork. Errors on paperwork can be explained, etc. I forget the term for it, someone I am sure knows. (just waking up)
ANyway. What a mess.....wonder what will happen next.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Sunday Legal Briefs |
Mar 18, 2012, 12:55 |
nin |
|
|
In another astonishing development in the Megaupload saga, a judge in New Zealand’s High Court has declared the order used to seize Kim Dotcom’s assets as “null and void”. The blunder, which occurred because the police applied for the wrong type of court order, means that the Megaupload founder could have his property returned.
Delicious!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
