User information for KGrT

Real Name
KGrT
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
September 16, 2010
Total Posts
5 (Suspect)
User ID
55947
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
5 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
48.
 
Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS
Sep 24, 2011, 11:37
48.
Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS Sep 24, 2011, 11:37
Sep 24, 2011, 11:37
 
"You mean like turning around and holding an individual hostage within arbitration with lawyers? Or by using an agreement that's so long, with terms that most people don't understand and try it as enforceable? Those are pretty good examples. Remember that the average reading level in north america is between grade 6 and grade 8. "

@Mashiki - "holding hostage within arbitration" - Thanks to Congress, it's legal and the supreme court does not consider it a due process violation because you enter into the agreement by "consent" (breaking the seal of the disc or clicking on "I agree"). At least with respect to adults, the judge is going to take that consent seriously and send you right back to arbitration. (Children are a special case). The reason I brought up the Toyota case is because that style of contract was completely inappropriate. However, the Toyota case hasn't actually been decided on the merits yet, and we could be in for a surprise.

You should be mad! Nothing will happen until everyone is mad enough to force Congress to repeal the FAA.
44.
 
Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS
Sep 24, 2011, 08:54
44.
Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS Sep 24, 2011, 08:54
Sep 24, 2011, 08:54
 
TOS and EULAs are still valid under US law. To get out of one, you must show procedural and substantive unconscionability in the contract. The Toyota stalker advertisement case is an **excellent** example of such unconscionability. That however, has no bearing on the validity of EA's arbitration clause.
11.
 
Re: No way!
Sep 23, 2011, 21:50
11.
Re: No way! Sep 23, 2011, 21:50
Sep 23, 2011, 21:50
 
It's part of the binding arbitration clause, and it's an enforceable way to prevent you from having a judge or jury trial thanks to Congress passing the Federal Arbitration Act. It also helps prevent class actions thanks to the AT&T Mobility v Conception SCOTUS decision.

EA is doing what's in their natural interest. If you don't like it, you need to motivate your Congressman to introduce a bill to abrogate the FAA.

This comment was edited on Sep 23, 2011, 22:30.
13.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 16, 2010, 15:59
13.
Re: Op Ed Sep 16, 2010, 15:59
Sep 16, 2010, 15:59
 
You're misconstruing my comment as supporting anti-consumer behavior. It is not.

What I am saying is that it's hypocritical to be unsympathetic to problem of developer exploitation by publishers and also complain about the loss of variety, originality, and genre disappearance.

Back to anti-consumer behavior... Regardless of the contents of the article, keep in mind that in general hostile policies are more often than not mandated by the publisher - *not* the developer.

11.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 16, 2010, 08:34
11.
Re: Op Ed Sep 16, 2010, 08:34
Sep 16, 2010, 08:34
 
You haters can act as apathetic as you like, but the fact of the matter is that whether it's music or video games, publishers bend over small developers and musicians in a major way. It's NOT like they can just shop around - the publishers have the negotiating leverage and they ALL ruthlessly exploit the heck out of it in their contract negotiations. Nothing short of a major AAA hit can give developers the leverage to turn the tables.

You don't care? That's fine. But you don't get to complain about sequel overkill, a lack of originality, or vanishing genres without being a hypocrite.
5 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older