this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
67 points (95.9% liked)

PC Gaming

8576 readers
402 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Say I go to a furniture store and buy a table. It has a 5 year warranty. 2 years later, it breaks, so I call Ubersoft and ask them to honor the warranty and fix it. If they don’t, then I can file a suit against them, i.e., for breach of contract. I may not even have to file a suit, as there may be government agencies who receive and act on these complaints, like my local consumer protection division.

I’m talking about real things here. Your example is a situation where the US government agrees that a company shouldn’t be permitted to take my money and then renege on their promises. And that’s generally true of most governments.

Supposing an absence of regulations protecting consumers like me, like you’re trying to suggest in your example, then it would be reasonable to assume an absence of laws and regulations protecting the corporation from consumers like me. Absent such laws, a consumer would be free to take matters into their own hands. They could go back to Ubersoft and take a replacement table without their agreement - it wouldn’t be “stealing” because it wouldn’t be illegal. If Ubersoft were closed, the consumer could break in. If Ubersoft security tried to stop them, the consumer could retaliate - damaging Ubersoft’s property, physically attacking the owner / management / employees, etc.. Ubersoft could retaliate as well, of course - nothing’s stopping them. And as a corporation, they certainly have more power than a random consumer - but at that point they would need to employ their own security forces rather than relying on the government for them.

Even if we kept laws prohibiting physical violence, the consumer is still regulated by things like copyright and IP protections, e.g., the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. Absent such regulations, a consumer whose software was rendered unusable or changed in a way they didn’t like could reverse engineer it, bypass DRM, host their own servers, etc.. Given that you didn’t speak against those regulations, I can only infer that you are not opposed to them.

Why do you think we don’t need regulations protecting consumers but that we do need regulations restricting them?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Say I go to a furniture store and buy a table. It has a 5 year warranty

It doesn't. Before you buy the table they make you sign this agreement (which has a typo in it), explicitly stating there is no warranty.

YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT USE OF THE PRODUCT IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, THE PRODUCT IS SUPPLIED ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE“ BASIS. UBISOFT UBISOFT’S LICENSORS, CHANNEL PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATED SERVICE PROVIDERS DO NOT MAKE AND HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS, WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY OR OTHER TERMS INCLUDIND AS TO: (A) ITS CONFORMITY, ACCURACY, CURRENTNESS, COMPLETENESS, RELIABILITY OR SECURITY (B) ITS SUITABILITY FOR A PARTICULAR USE; (C) IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT; (D) ITS MARKET VALUE; OR (E) YOUR SATISFACTION. UBISOFT DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE PRODUCT WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, THAT DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THE PRODUCT IS FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. YOU ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTING THE PRODUCT TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION OF, USE OF, AND RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE PRODUCT.

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It looks like you believe that EULA rewrite the law; big news: that's not how things works. EULA could add something like

...AND, SOMETIME, WE'LL BARGE IN YOUR HOUSE AND TAKE STUFF WE LIKE.

After you have accepted the EULA and they trespass in your house stealing stuff, you know what will happen?

They end up in jail for stealing the same as any common thieves.

[BY POSTING REPLY TO THIS POST, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL YOUR BELONING ARE OWNED BY @alessandro@lemmy.ca. PLEASE CLICK ON THE REPLY BUTTON ONLY IF YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS]

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Jesus christ does it say that? No it doesn't. Everyone in this thread is constantly making shit up to make it sound like what Ubisoft did is literal murder. Selling things with no warranty is perfectly legal and the government isn't going to overturn laws because Ubisoft is a shit company. Just don't buy from Ubisoft! It's easy!

Most licenses for software sold at retail disclaim (as far as local laws permit) any warranty on the performance of the software and limit liability for any damages to the purchase price of the software. One well-known case which upheld such a disclaimer is Mortenson v. Timberline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Selling things with no warranty is perfectly legal.

You seems unaware that most countries have consumer protection laws. They cover mandatory warranty, health and security protocols (for physical stuff) and all sort of laws against planned obsolescence, fair competition etc...etc.

Just don’t buy from Ubisoft! It’s easy!

If you're unaware that Ubisoft is going against consumer laws... well, of course you say so. Make yourself a question. If it's perfectly legal for Ubisoft to "shut down" phisical videogames you bought in the store: why isn't everybody doing so?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Make yourself a question. If it's perfectly legal for Ubisoft to "shut down" phisical videogames you bought in the store: why isn't everybody doing so?

Because people would stop buying their games!

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

"Because people would stop buying their games!" [makes] "it’s perfectly legal"?

That's your logic?