Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I'd be screaming blue murder to anyone who would listen.
|
They are. They're being called pirates. The mainstream press isn't
interested. And the private screaming hasn't yet really started because people are still waiting for the results of appeals (Which are going to take a few weeks, apparently). Are you sure
you'd start screaming before you'd appealed? (I wouldn't).
deltop - And there are "automatically unfair" terms in the T&C's for Live (plain language and transparancy, 1(d), 1(f), 1(g), 1(i), 1(j), 1(k), 1(m), 1(o),arguably 1(p),1(q), also Unfair enforcement powers, Excluding the customer's right to assign, Exclusions and reservations of special rights, not to mention the seperate issue of multiple breaches of the distance selling regulations on issues such as refunds (a token currency itself is not a service) and information on "durable mediums" - the latter being silly for internet sales, but still the law!).
You're also still not differentiating between a complaint to the ASA and a civil action. A complaint to the ASA could only lead to the adverts being blocked, yes. Civil action can lead to unfair terms being set aside or revised.
And if Activision want to cut the industry's throat, yes. But
they're not, and neither are EA - they both take a fairly pragmatic view towards piracy. They've refused to tread in the realm of lawsuits (unlike music and games) and are invested in largely pirate-proof enterprises like social gaming and MMO's. Oh, they're certainly not perfect - EA occasionally use DRM on PC games (and see the sales sink), and ATVI-B are still making sweeping claims regardling online rights, but they are in general still trying.
Trampling on customer's rights is not a good basis for a good ongoing relationship between you and they. If you want them to pay and keep on paying, you need trust.
Also, did someone hear a troll muttering? Yea...