Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fine Print Says Game Store Owns Your Soul

Posted by samzenpus on from the anything-to-beat-this-level dept.

mr_sifter writes "UK games retailer GameStation revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of customers, thanks to a clause it secretly added to the online terms and conditions for its website. The 'Immortal Soul Clause' was added as part of an attempt to highlight how few customers read the terms and conditions of an online sale. GameStation claims that 88 percent of customers did not read the clause, which gives legal ownership of the customer's soul over to the UK-based games retailer. The remaining 12 percent of customers however did notice the clause and clicked the relevant opt-out box, netting themselves a £5 GBP gift voucher in the process."

26 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Legally owns.... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for sufficient definitions of "unconscionable contract".

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Legally owns.... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      for sufficient definitions of "unconscionable contract".

      Or for sufficient definitions of 'joke.'

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Legally owns.... by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if the court accepts that such a thing actually exists and has a value to be considered.

      That's going to be one interesting court case, especially when the time for evidence comes.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Legally owns.... by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And since Jehovah Created you, you'd be a total dick to go to the Other Guy. Ingrate.

      I love it when religion tries its hand at something so alien as this newfangled invention called "logic" (you know, created after the stone age, that's pretty new from a religious POV).

      Now another internally consistent argument would say that since Jehovah created you including your soul, he has no use for souls, since he can apparently make them. Giving your soul to him would be like giving the shoemaker a pair of shoes for christmas.

      Debunk me. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Legally owns.... by BubbaDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shoemakers never have good shoes themselves, their best work and materials always goes to others.

      Giving shoes to a shoemaker is a wonderful gift.

      Dave

    5. Re:Legally owns.... by chromas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he said "people with souls".

    6. Re:Legally owns.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Nobody but an idiot or religious nutjob would care. A "soul" is a man-made idea that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. They can go ahead and "own" all of the "souls" that they want.

      The next thing you know, they'll be bragging about all of the pixies and unicorns that they own too.

    7. Re:Legally owns.... by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you are claiming is merely a presumption, and one of many possible scenarios

      Exactly my point. I was showing the GP that his story is just one of many, by making up my own. Since we're talking about the presumed motivations of hypothetical beings, it is a little difficult to ascertain the truth, or even just a probability.

      but religion as a fundamental belief structure has yet to be proven one way or another,

      Proven as what? As a belief structure? I think we're done with that. As "true" or "false"? That's trivial: We have about a dozen large religions, all mutually exclusive, all claiming that they and only they are in posession of the truth. By their own internal logic, at most one of them can be. If elven of them are wrong, what are the chances that the 12th is right?

      Socrates when he said "all that I know is that I know nothing." Understanding that there are gaps in human knowledge

      Socrates was over two millenia ago, we have made a little bit of progress since then. Most importantly, we have realized that there is a difference between not knowing everything, and knowing nothing at all. And we have dug a lot deeper into the nature of truth since Socrates and Plato and especially Aristotle. Granted, it's taken us almost 2000 years, but we finally arrived at non-Aristotelian logic, for example. We realize that whatever "truth" ultimately may be, even if we can not claim to know anything absolutely really for certain, some knowledge, such as physics or medicine, has obvious, visible, reliable and testable practical applications. And some knowledge, such as music, or ethics, has somewhat fuzzy, and not-quite-obvious, but still overal positive practical effects. And some knowledge, such as Voodoo, and Kabballa, and religion, simply doesn't.

      Nevertheless, we do apparently have a built-in desire for some kind of spirituality, be it religion or some replacement. There is a lot of very interesting research still to be done on the human mind. It just happens that the nonsense some barely literate desert dwellers wrote down twenty centuries ago isn't among it. It's a historical curiosity, like ancient greek physics.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Legally owns.... by Tom · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I enjoy insulting religious fools. They are being treated with way too much respect. Tolerance is not always appropriate.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:Legally owns.... by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religion is the reason we have universities and higher education today. You personally may choose to ignore the moral ideals of many religions, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

      Well, this is /. and I'm not really writing a book, so some parts of my opinion are necessarily missing. I actually do believe that religion once served a useful role for the development of mankind. I disagree about the education part, especially given that one religion (Christianity) was a major factor in destroying what higher education the ancient world already had in place, but that's a minor point.

      The major point is that this time is long past, and these days (and for hundreds of years now), religion has been more of a burden than a help. It's time to get rid of it.

      He does have "use" of it, in the sense that it is a gift, and should not be wasted to damage yourself or others.

      If it is a gift, then it comes with no strings attached and I can do with it as I see fit. If there are strings attached, it isn't a gift, but something else, maybe a lease. Please make up your mind if you want to discuss this point.

      I studied to be a priest for 2 years, and we were required to take courses in logic. I would imagine most have not.
      Your attitude toward religion and logic are not logical.

      *nod*

      The amount of effort that the organized religions put into their foot soldiers is frightening. I know what priests learn during training. They are much better trained for speaking than many actual professions that require speaking skills.For example, teachers don't get nearly as much voice training, even though they speak all day, every day.

      My attitude toward religion isn't logical, but I can create an unbroken logical chain towards it, and reason and intuition have mutually reinforced each other over several years before I came to where I am today. I'm not saying "religion is evil" because I feel like doing so anymore than a physicist says "gravity exists" because he feels its pull - he certainly has that feeling, but it is only a tiny part of what actually constitutes his knowledge about gravity. So if you say that there is no physical reason to even research gravity, then you are certainly right. But that doesn't put gravity itself beyond reason.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:Legally owns.... by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is left of you after your body is dead is your soul.

      Actually, what's left of your body is some decomposing biomass. Whether or not there is anything in addition to the body is very much up for debate, and I happen to not accept the answer "we know because this dusty old tome from a time when the entire human knowledge about medicine and psychology could fit on a single sheet of paper tells us so".

      If you created an animated "Intelligent" life form and set it free to roam the world, would you want it to come back or go live with your worst enemy?

      I'd certainly enjoy the occasional visit, but if I set it free to roam the world then I'd want it to, you know, roam the world.

      Now if I built in a death timer so that it has to come back to me after a while, much against its own will, I'd consider myself a fucked up egomaniac.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  2. Make it readable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want me to read it, make it readable.

    1. NO legalese
    2. One page maximum length

    Putting a 30 page wall of text full of legalese and word games does NOT constitute a useful document. I'm paying for a product, not to play lawyer.

    1. Re:Make it readable by Vohar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing about legal documents: It doesn't matter if you read them, understand them, whatever. Only that you sign them.

    2. Re:Make it readable by samkass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think every software review needs to include reading and understanding the EULA in the "time to install" and "time to update" metric.

      When the review hits the stands that "Windows 7 takes a week and $200 in lawyers fees to install" maybe something will change?

      --
      E pluribus unum
    3. Re:Make it readable by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The store in TFA (TFS, even) is a UK store, you dolt.

      The UK is in the EU.

      UK and EU law is what matters here, not US law.

      Country of origin for the reader is irrelevant.

    4. Re:Make it readable by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And HIS point was that unless he signs it, it's just a bunch of meaningless babble and should be treated as such. Looks like this thread is 0 for 2!

  3. Re:Enforceable? by leomekenkamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Totally offtopic, but why would a user with a four-digit id want the user id from a five-digit user?

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
  4. No soul to sell. by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering that I do not have a "Soul" I fail to see the threat.

    Would you like my pet Unicorn with that?

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    1. Re:No soul to sell. by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...Because seriously, I don't think I've ever seen any group brag about their religious beliefs as much as atheists do.

      What? :) Look around you sometimes. You seriously missed all the churches/etc.? I can see two of them (plus some monument for worshipping) only through my window. Built by funds funneled from poor people led to believe in a fantasy (sadly, in my place there still isn't much use for them; they aren't converted into buildings of public utility, as is more or less the norm in two countries I have behind the border); loudspeakers disseminating words and songs from the inside. Even that's nothing compared to bells (not puny ones...I if'd do such a racket at such hour every day, there would be certainly o considerable fine involved...only first few times), "faith inspired policies", creating a caste of untouchables...I guess all those things become invisible when camp you were brough into since infancy is behind them, eh?
      Me...I wouldn't care, wouldn't respond if not for all getting in my way.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. Re:Some folks will be REALLY offended by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good. We're not here to amuse the remaining dumbos who have remained in the mental iron age.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  6. Not "idle" by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an important problem. And this was a really great way to highlight it. Huge props for Gamestop for doing this, instead of profiting from it.

    The real problem though, is not people not reading it. The problem is, that in practice it’s impossible to read all the terms of all the contracts.
    First they are deliberately written in undecipherable legal code. Something that should be illegal, but isn’t because it’s so hard to define.
    Then it’s way too much. You would have to read a multi-page small-font document, every time you pull out your wallet. (Yes, the terms can change in the two days between you going to the same shop to buy your food.)
    And finally, the whole thing is also deliberately made hard to access. How often did you go into a building with house rules, or signed a contract that mentioned them or some other external document, but they never handed them to you, and even acted annoyed and insulted, when you pointed it out, and demanded the document?

    It is 100% crystal clear that pretty much all companies do not want you to read any of it, for the very purpose of them biting you in the ass as soon as you trip over the tiniest irregularity. Or even without doing anything.

    Most contracts basically go like this:
    [big font] WE MAKE YOUR DREAM COME TRUE FOR FREE [/big font]
    [tiny font] There is some hidden document in the lower drawer in the basement of a building on the other side of the world, that is part of what you sign [tiny font]
    [hidden document] We give you NOTHING, but take from you EVERYTHING! [hidden document]

    And that is no different than mob tactics. In fact I say it out loud, and call every major corporation on this world a criminal mob with the sole purpose of making as much money as possible, even when it means walking over more dead bodies than the Nazis.
    Examples: Monsanto, Haliburton, Eli Lily, Shell, Elsevier.
    They all have private armies. They all have revolving doors with every big government. They all make huge profits with lies, death and deception. ...hell, Microsoft is a silly small fish in that area, when compared to those. But still way above the line of acceptable moral behavior.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  7. NOT IDLE !! by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    this is not idle. this is a very serious and important issue. it proves how useless and detrimental current legal contract system is. it is infeasible for any user/customer to sit and read 4-5 pages of text and then to weight it and then to agree. EVEN if you did that, chances are high that you would still fail to assess it properly, because most require extensive local legal knowledge. The article shouldnt have been in idle. its some important issue that affects everyone and every business.

    --
    Read radical news here
  8. Re:Reminds me the recent sad Sony/Linux affair... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In Canada you can't be held to a contract unless your of legal age. Since the majority of the target audience of console games is under 20 most of the people agreeing to the EULAs can't be held accountable, at least in Canada.

    Hopefully as a result of that the Sony EULA, you agree to by just taking your PS3 out of the box and starting it up, will be tried by a court. Maybe there's a couple of judges out that will agree EULAs are unreasonable for people to be able to read and just clicking an OK button isn't sufficient indication someone read or understood it. EULA should be something that an average member of the target audience can read and understand. Since according to all the statistics I've read about a large population of kids coming out of high school can't read, there would be no more EULAs

    Sorry the pot I'm smelling from the school next to my house must be giving me crazy ideas.

  9. Contract law needs to be redone by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Specifically, there has to be a requirement any contract that is NOT signed by a lawyer for the both sides as well as the participants, must:

    1. Be no more than 800 words (2 pages or so)

    2. Contain no latin or other legal terms that the average High School Graduate does not understand.

    If the contract is longer or uses other words, than non-lawyers can NOT be expected to understand them anymore than I could be expected to understand a page in French.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  10. Re:I'm Really surprised... by tsalmark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I also was very surprised by the high percentage of people reading the legalese, especially as the opt-out is not something you would notice with out reading the document. But I think we can assume the first person to read, opt-out and get a $5 coupon ran and told all the online game forums. Everyone else just [ctrl]-Fed themselves a coupon with out actually reading anything.

  11. Fine print by Nephrite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But seriously, I don't know why having "fine print" in contracts is even legal. For any "reasonable person" it's obvious that having fine print is an attempt of one party to have the other not to read the print, which is a fraud at best. Seriously, what a honest person would need a fine print for? Conservation of paper?