Slashdot Mirror

Free/fair markets are good things. They promote efficiency. They generate good outcomes for customers and also, perhaps surprisingly, for companies too. (Monopolies tend to atrophy then crash and burn when disruption technology arises).

However, without regulation and oversight, consumers don't get a fair market. The balance of power is hugely tipped towards the companies, absent many competing companies in the market.

The problem is information. A consumer needs information to make a considered choice. Absent regulation, companies will lie. If you have to verify everything they say, it hugely inflates the cost of making an informed decision.

Consider the stock market, The SEC has very strict rules about not misleading the market, in order to keep the market fair. Alongside those strict rules come severe penalties. The sharks are there to eat each other, but they don't lie, because if they do, all the other sharks will turn on them and destroy them. Since it is actually easier to tell the truth than to lie (read, more efficient), the stock market tends towards truth.

Absent true competition and regulation, companies lie.

Compare this to a country like NZ, where the Consumer Guarantees Act requires that all goods and services be:

• Of merchantable quality
• Fit for the purpose provided
• As described

That last one is key. A telco trying this shit in NZ (disclaimer: I work for a NZ telco) would be fined into oblivion by a government agency set up to police the Act. By that, I mean each instance of such wrongdoing would attract a substantial fine.

And I like that. It means we have to be truthful about what we say about our services; it means our services have to perform reasonably well. But, exactly the same goes for our competitors. I assure you, complying with the CGA doesn't cost us any significant amount of money, and I sleep well at night.

How the USA gets there from the current position is not something I have an answer for.

No contracting out
Sellers cannot exempt themselves from their obligations under the Act, even if they put it in a contract.

The Act is enforced by the Commerce Commission (a Government body). The Commission can take traders to court if it thinks they have breached the Act. (And it does)

And no, MS can't say that the governing law is Washington state, USA. Well, they can, but it has no effect (see above), and doing so is itself an offence under the act.

That is, if a consumer might reasonably expect that this constituted a sale (and legal precedent in NZ under the CGA has established that means an average, not very well informed consumer), then it's a sale. And Microsoft has a presence in New Zealand and can certainly be fined. The fines are substantial and per incident, so as to discourage writing them off as a cost of doing business.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this service was even sold in New Zealand. And if it was, it is important to know who sold it. If it was the local games retailer, then they are liable. If it was through Microsoft's on-line store, then they bear responsibility.

No contracting out
Sellers cannot exempt themselves from their obligations under the Act, even if they put it in a contract.

The Act is enforced by the Commerce Commission (a Government body). The Commission can take traders to court if it thinks they have breached the Act. (And it does)

And no, MS can't say that the governing law is Washington state, USA. Well, they can, but it has no effect (see above), and doing so is itself an offence under the act.

That is, if a consumer might reasonably expect that this constituted a sale (and legal precedent in NZ under the CGA has established that means an average, not very well informed consumer), then it's a sale. And Microsoft has a presence in New Zealand and can certainly be fined. The fines are substantial and per incident, so as to discourage writing them off as a cost of doing business.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this service was even sold in New Zealand. And if it was, it is important to know who sold it. If it was the local games retailer, then they are liable. If it was through Microsoft's on-line store, then they bear responsibility.

it proved so unpopular that banks were effectively forced to reduce their hard-line stance:

http://www.consumer.org.nz/newsitem.asp?docid=5114&category=News&topic=Internet%20banking%20rule%20back-track

The NZ Consumer Supreme "I really don't give an ass" Award went to Telecom's Xtra this year.

Xtra have had a history of poor perforance.

The NZ Consumer Supreme "I really don't give an ass" Award went to Telecom's Xtra this year.

Xtra have had a history of poor perforance.

See the comments here.

http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?category=Lega l%20Rights&subcategory=Travel%20%26%20entertainmen t&docid=1800&topic=Copyright%20law&title=Your%20ri ghts%20explained&contenttype=summary&bhcp=1

I believe it's still under discussion.

Mind you, I respect their rights to have such an idiotic license...

If their license is what you say it is, then I don't. I can't speak for the USA, but in New Zealand we cetain laws (specifically the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act) that provide consumers with certain rights (consumer guarantees and fair trading) to expect that what they're getting when they hand over money is what they'd been led to believe that they were buying.

If such a game hadn't been clearly marked at the point of sale that it might frequently break and become unplayable, the seller would most likely have to provide a full refund if the buyer requested it. I doubt that fine print in a license on its own would be enough, since people don't traditionally expect to have to read a detailed license agreement before purchasing a game off a shelf.

Mind you, I respect their rights to have such an idiotic license...

If their license is what you say it is, then I don't. I can't speak for the USA, but in New Zealand we cetain laws (specifically the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act) that provide consumers with certain rights (consumer guarantees and fair trading) to expect that what they're getting when they hand over money is what they'd been led to believe that they were buying.

If such a game hadn't been clearly marked at the point of sale that it might frequently break and become unplayable, the seller would most likely have to provide a full refund if the buyer requested it. I doubt that fine print in a license on its own would be enough, since people don't traditionally expect to have to read a detailed license agreement before purchasing a game off a shelf.

In practice, this means that if I buy, for example, a DVD player with a one year warranty on it, and it dies after 18 months, which is not a reasonable length of life for a DVD player, then the retailer I purchased it from is responsible for replacing or fixing it, and within a reasonable time frame as well.

In fact, although a number of retailers here offer to sell extended warranties with their more expensive products, most of the cover you receive with those warrantys are already afforded to consumers under the Act.

In this case, it would be trivial for the guy to return it in NZ, and the retailer wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to claim it wasn't their responsibility or that the warranty had expired.

1. Goods must be of merchantable quality
2. Goods must be fit for the purpose provided

Important moral of that story is that if you want truly independant reviews then:

• Buy your own stuff to review
• Don't accept advertising

It'll be hard financially, having to pay hard cash to purchase crappy stuff to blast in reviews. But readers should be willing to pay extra money to read good quality, unbiased reporting.

Which reminds me that my completely unoffical, unbiased, say-it-like-it-really-is-not-how-the-advertiser-th inks-it-is, fan site recently completely peed our subject material off and got us bad press. No worries. People visit our site not for candy coating, but cold hard facts.

Stay true to the facts, not the money.