Earlier quoted context omitted.
Customers would be informed. Many would leave for GOG.com
I do not think customer behaviour would change that much.
Then Amazon has no reason to resist this change!
Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
241–250 of 318 posts
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…
> effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks This behavior for smaller companies will likely result in fines from Visa, MasterCard and other cards. You really are supposed to treat charge-backs like you would losing an arbitration if you are a merchant. I've watched many a merchant do shady things around charge-backs and find out the hard way (I used to own an MSP, was enlightening). Most of t…
I agree, the protections is meaningful for small/medium vendors of physical goods. The problem is the balance of power shifts when you have oligopolistic "platform" vendors where the stake of the user is not just that one transaction but the sum of all previous transactions, and that is something that is really only possible in digital transactions. Wal-Mart cannot come into my house and take back the lamps off my table and the food off my shelves. Effectively, Steam and Amazon and Apple can do that - because, as others note, it's not a purchase, it's a revocable license and the ToS includes a "whenever we want" clause.
Requiring that all licenses be refunded at the face value in the event of cancellation would be one relatively equitable outcome. Or you can simply prohibit revocation - refuse to allow companies to ever invoke those terms except after a legal proceeding or similar oddball circumstances.
There is a similar effect around provision of services really. Once you reach the oligopolistic level of market consolidation (and there are services like Steam or Google where that's practically inevitable) then different rules really ought to apply. Which is a problem in a lot of areas, not just revocable licenses.
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
You purchased _access_ to the media for as long as the company decides to host it. You don't physically own the media. Think of it as renting or a lease.
We shouldn't think of it as renting or a lease, companies should call it renting or leasing. Otherwise, they're pissing on my leg and telling me that it's raining.
Well after _years_ of getting pissed on most people move their leg instead of complaining about it. :)
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Realize that you're statment is a euphemism. What you really mean is we have the choice between implementing a dark pattern or finding another job and letting someone else implement it. Stated this way it's a lot easier to understand people's behavior.
That has always been a massive copout.
What makes it a copout? I've had friends choose the resign option. I've been fortunate enough that my resignations didn't involve ultimatums.
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…
> music I've purchased They really ought to stop using "buy"/"purchase" metaphorically to mean something more like "one time fee for an indefinite lease that ends upon account termination." If they simply used a word better suited to the reality of the situation, then it wouldn't be a surprise that the account (which is a privilege, not a right) is a dependency of using what you paid for. Maybe something like "micro-…
> the account (which is a privilege, not a right) is a dependency of using what you paid for
The moment you made the account a pre-requisite to use something I have already paid for - whether it's software, music, or an internet connected lightbult, is the moment the account stopped being a privilidge.
Do you see where it is headed next? We have internet connected cars and door locks. There are subscribtions for a butt-heater in a car.
Withing the next 5 years someone will freeze to death because a company has pulled or made a mess of their account.
There is no other line of business where you can unilaterally revoke a service that the customer has already paid for. Where continous service requires some conditions or behaviour, this is spelled out in a contract - these companies change their terms on a whim.
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…
You purchased _access_ to the media for as long as the company decides to host it. You don't physically own the media. Think of it as renting or a lease.
> Think of it as renting or a lease.
> as long as the company decides to host it
If you put a clause like that into a rental agreement for a house, and try to collect, it would be thrown out as soon the judge stops laughing.
If I rent a house, and have already paid a year of rent, my landlord can't just wake up one day and kick me out in the middle of the year. These companies can just remove you on a whim.
Furthermore, landlord has obligations towards me: he must fix the house if it is leaking, and if the house is rendered unlivable (i.e. the roof caves in) and it's his fault, he has to provide me with alternative accomodation.
For a contract to be valid, it must have duraton. If it's a lease that says '9999 years', then the landlord/freeholder can't just sneak in at night and demolish the building.
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could just actually sell things instead. As in, sell for real , not some at-our-discretion lease. Nobody's forcing companies to gate access and add DRM and all that. Such a change probably wouldn't result in perpetual hosting, but in actually selling things . Or, in only providing rentals. Either way, the situation would be clearer to the end user.
What are you talking about? Do you mean send out games on DVD?
There are these thingswe wused to put on DVDs, we call them install files. You can find them on like every torrent tracker these days.
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#248Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be interesting to see the EU try and force a company to host something in perpetuity. Interesting thought exercise.
I forced a book publisher to re-host videos on a particular CDN using the exact same URL’s because they advertised that the book came with videos, but the QR codes stopped working. Can’t imagine that was fun or cheap to fix. I made a complaint to the advertising standards authority in the UK. They agreed with my complaint and forced the publisher to get the URL’s working again. I’m not sure how long they will keep wo…
That's actually really good, I am sure I came across a similar problem but never thought of where to make a proper complaint
Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be true, but the EU can simply outlaw those types of contractual arrangements going forward, and require that prior purchases be either defaulted into the new purchase arrangement or refunded. Welcome to governments that are actually responsive to protecting their citizens. It doesn't have to be the way it is in the US with corporations holding all the cards, that's just regulatory capture in action. That's…
It would be interesting to see the EU try and force a company to host something in perpetuity. Interesting thought exercise.
Easy- revoke copyright protection.
Your "software X" is not worth hosting any more? Fine, then someone else can host it, maybe they will find it profitable.
Maybe even it could be a former employee.