Yeah jackass, just what this industry needs, the government to design some f*cked up regulations which only make money for lawyers.
Yes, that's right. Consumer protection laws only enrich lawyers. No consumer has ever benefitted from such legislation. LOL!
If you could design the laws, what standard would you use?...
It need not be that complicated. Simply treat software sold (licensed) to consumers as a standard consumer product with the normal liabilities of such a product and not some rented service which exonerates the purveyor of all responsibility if the software doesn't perform as it should or as advertised.
The consumer and the developers would get fucked.
The consumer would be in a much better situation than he is in right now because right now he is totally fucked. Developers would have to stop abrogating their responsibilities to develop a quality product.
Defective toys that can hurt childeren are recalled, but just because a toy sucks ass and your kid hates it, doesn't mean you can sue.
Actually in America you can sue.
And millions of toys break while kids are playing with them, should we clog the courts even further every time a kid drops and breaks a toy?
Of course not, but if the toy was made of substandard or defective materials, the manufacturer is liable and is responsible for repair or replacement.
If you're worried about compatibility or performance, wait for the demo. You can wait can't you?
A demo does not show and tell all about the shipping version of game, nor do all games have demos. Bugs and defects exist in full versions of some games but not in the demo versions because the content is different.
If you want to find out about the game, use the internet.
That is not a substitute for the publisher's responsibility to deliver a quality product which performs as advertised or expected. No game review tells all, and even if it is unbiased, it is still just a single opinion and most importantly, it is NOT the consumer's own opinion.
There are tons of laws which can protect consumers. The EULA doesn't protect the industry from most of them.
Actually both UCITA (in the states where it is law) and current case law regarding EULA's do protect the industry from them.
And it wouldn't take much of an effort for a lawyer to negate the whole thing. Contract by both sides? And for precedent, a few months back, a judge ruled the an internet company was not held liable for a violation of privacy statement set forth in their little click through. They argued and the judge agreed that no one reads the contracts and therefore they couldn't hold the company responsible for what they said in the clickthrough.
The difference though is that is a privacy agreement not a software license agreement.
Opening shrinkwrap is not signing a contract.
Unfortunately courts have ruled that it is. The current ruling in the Blizzard/Vivendi versus BnetD case says just that.This comment was edited on Jun 18, 06:04.