TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

7,500 Online Shoppers Unknowingly Sold Their Souls

130 点作者 willphipps大约 15 年前

9 条评论

otakucode大约 15 年前
Most people would take this as a simple joke, but I think there's far more to it. Not the idea of 'soul ownership', but the fact that there exist essentially NO consumer protections whatsoever when it comes to these "digital licenses" that the gaming industry is increasingly using. With these licenses, gamers are stripped of nearly every single right they would retain if they had bought the game in retail form. It would be illegal in most countries for the sellers of any retail product to restrict the rights of the consumer in the way that game companies do to gamers. No seller can forbid you from selling the product you buy to someone else. With game licenses, they do. No seller can forbid you from using the product and then giving it to a friend. With game licenses, they do. No seller can forbid you from allowing a friend to borrow the item. With game licenses, they do. The list goes on, and is quite long.<p>As more and more transactions take place involving 'licenses' instead of transfer of traditional goods, we are losing a tremendous amount of freedom with how we interact with and use our purchases. I think it would be a good idea for people to start standing up and talking to their representatives about the need for consumer protection laws in the arena of digital licenses. The way it is going, we'll only end up with such things if the companies end up crossing the line and doing something entirely legal that would infuriate the general public to a great degree, such as Apple locking every iTunes customer out of music they already bought a license for until they paid another $1 per track to re-purchase access to it. That would be completely legal and within their rights, and the consumers would have no legal grounds to comaplin at all. They signed away their rights. In EVERY other area of commerce, there are laws preventing consumers from even being capable of signing away such rights, and preventing sellers from exploiting their customers in such ways. Not digital media, though. There are no protections at all when it comes to 'licenses.'
评论 #1270803 未加载
jjs大约 15 年前
They'd have a hard time getting them from U.S.-based customers: souls, being human remains, cannot be sent by US Mail.<p>(<a href="http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume6/v6i4/postal-6-4.html" rel="nofollow">http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume6/v6i4/postal...</a>)
评论 #1270683 未加载
chaosmachine大约 15 年前
<a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270058" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1270058</a>
评论 #1270408 未加载
评论 #1270375 未加载
RandolphCarter大约 15 年前
Unfortunately dread Cthullu got my soul long ago, so I would have to opt out of this particular licensing agreement.<p>Ia! Ia! Cthullu fhtagn!<p>:-)
hkuo大约 15 年前
How do we know that these shoppers did not, in fact, knowingly submit their souls to this company? Like, hey, why not? No biggie.<p>In all honesty, this just illustrates a very common UI practice that opt-outs are more effective than opt-ins.
评论 #1271255 未加载
richardburton大约 15 年前
That is fantastic link-bait for their site. Well worth giving a few hundred customers a discount voucher.
评论 #1270824 未加载
aw3c2大约 15 年前
<i></i><i>The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag</i><i></i>
JMiao大约 15 年前
this should have been in the dante's inferno eula.
alexkay大约 15 年前
Obligatory xkcd comic: <a href="http://xkcd.com/501/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/501/</a>