| |||||||||||||
Why not sue them?Why not sue them?Posted Oct 19, 2006 8:36 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)Parent article: Free gadgets need free software Maybe I misunderstand something, but the story looks like this: a customer buys a gadget that can (among other things) record FM radio (I guess it's specified in the User's Manual too). Then the customer installs an "upgrade" from the vendor of the gadget and this feature (which the customer have already paid for) disappears. Isn't it illegal for the vendor to take away functionality that was already paid?
(Log in to post comments)
Why not sue them? Posted Oct 19, 2006 9:12 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Isn't it illegal for the vendor to take away functionality that was already paid? Not at all! I'm pretty sure this thing includes typical "I don't have any right and you can sell my soul to devil when you feel like it" language in it's contract. Like iTunes does... When millions are happily sing contracts which can potentially force you to lose your house and/or work or do a lot of other nasty things and the companies you can be pretty sure such triviality as removal of the existing functionality will be "not a big deal"... P.S. If you don't see any problems with iTunes contract then read it again: "Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement". It does not really matter what the rest of the agreement says: Apple can introduce subscription fee $1'000'000 per second. No problem. Or it can say: "everything you've bought till xx.xx.xxxx is no longer yours". Just fine. Or any other thing. You've agreed in anvance. The exception being criminal laws - all other laws are irrelevant since you've already agreed to not use them... Of course it also contains words "your continued use of the iTunes Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms" but since said rules can easily change between the time when you are reading latest revision of these terms and the time when you hit an "Ok" button - it does not change situation much: you've still agreeing to the something you've never had chance to read and understood. How anyone can agree to terms like this is beyond me but somehow iTunes store has buyers this means people are quite ready to sell soul for few nickels...
Why not sue them? Posted Oct 19, 2006 18:28 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] There may well be some juristictions where taking away functions which were there when the device was first purchased, and especially refusing to give them back, will be considered illegal (and perhaps even criminal). And there are quite a few places where contracts are subject to overriding legislation outlawing unfair terms (variously defined) so trying to deny all responsibility in the small print may not work. And of course, there's the longstanding issue about whether a shrink-wrap "contract" that you can't read until after you purchase is any sort of contract at all, or just packaging materials. If there's no valid contract, revising functionality downwards in an irreversible manner sounds a lot like criminal damage (just how does it differ from a garage returning your car with the windows deliberately smashed?)
A manufacturer who sells such a device world-wide will be walking on thin ice.
Why not sue them? Posted Oct 19, 2006 19:38 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I think this misses a key point - it is not the manufacturer who is installing the upgrade, it is the user, voluntarily choosing to give up some existing functionality in return for some new/improved functionality. The original device, with its original firmware, continues to meet its sales description. So, I doubt there's a legal issue with this.
Itunes "we own your soul" agreement Posted Oct 20, 2006 0:39 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] FYI, there are legal restrictions on how much force language like this has. The law does not give a person the power to commit to terms to be made up entirely by the other guy at a later date. The point of language like this in a contract is that the two parties have to agree to current terms on an ongoing basis. Your agreement with Apple concerning a song you download today doesn't mean Apple must give you the same terms on another song tomorrow. But if tomorrow's terms are different, Apple does have to tell you and if you don't actively agree to them, they aren't binding (and, of course, you stop using the service). The active agreement to the new terms is the continuing use of the service you mention. But that doesn't count if you didn't know the terms changed, and there isn't some reason you should have known. Whether you should have known is one of those matters of opinion that we have juries and mountains of case law for, but it's all quite reasonable.
Why not sue them? Posted Oct 20, 2006 10:04 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] I'm glad that you mention Apple and the terms and conditions for iTunesbecause exactly Apple is currently in the hot seat here in Scandinavia for exactly this. The thing is that we have some sensible laws here in Denmark (and the other Scandinavian countries) that protects the consumer. Among other things, they say that the seller can't change the terms and conditions after the sale. The same thing will be true for this change I would think. Which means that it should be possible to force Creative to release an update that adds the feature again.
|
|||||||||||||