What's the point of these things if they run off the grid? The grid is dirty power. These cars increase load on the grid thus increasing dirty power usage.
These things are nothing but spending large sums of money to feel like your making a different. They're not.
You have an article in which someone says that someone should be able to tell the different. That's all well and good but meaningless. It's some random person's opinion.
Please come back when you have a link to some sort of testing to see if there's any credibility to what this person thinks should happen.
Compulsion is not a necessary element; deception or lack of genuine consent also qualify. If one believes that the Steam Subscriber Agreement is reaffirming the terms of the Steam license, rather than providing terms governing the immediate purchase, there is not genuine consent inasmuch as the immediate transaction is concerned. As stated before one test does not unconscionable make. It requires both a procedural and a substantive element. Freeman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 111 Cal.App.4th 660, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 860, 866 (2003)
There is no procedural unconscionability since you have the option of not buying the product.
It is entirely clear that the document is binding in some manner. It is not clear that the document applies to the product being purchased, rather than to Steam itself. Now you're just being argumentative and contrary. It is perfectly clear that it is a contract, and perfectly clear that a subscription is being purchased.
"You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by installing the Steam client software and completing the Steam registration. Additionally, as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content ("Subscriptions") available to Subscribers." "Each Subscription allows you access to certain services, software and other content under the terms of each such Subscription and this Agreement."
The contract explicitly differentiates between subscriptions and merchandise.
It's quite clear in the _Ownership_ section that you don't own anything.
Overwhelmingly favors one side which has superior bargaining power. This test is failed. As mentioned before there is no superior bargaining power. It's a pure luxury item. They have no means of compulsion. There is no damage to you for declining the contract. Again just because something is unfair does not mean it is unconscionable.
"Purchase a subscription" in not the wording they use when clicking on the button to indicate that one wishes to buy (what is presented as) a product; it may be the wording used in the license agreement subsequently displayed, We've already covered this under the fine print discussion.
but (largely on account of that distinction) that license agreement's applicability to the ongoing transaction is not immediately clear to the layman, "This Steam Subscriber Agreement ("Agreement") is a legal document that explains your rights and obligations as a Subscriber. Please read it carefully." is perfectly clear to a layman.
without implication as to the product being "purchased", as purchase of a product is the manner in which the transaction has been presented up to and until that point, and the language of the agreement itself is the only indication to the contrary Ad copy is not a contract. You admit that the contract explains that it is not a purchase of product. That's the contract's purpose. Again we're repeating the fine print discussion.
I was arguing that this would be clearly unconscionable in the sale of a physical product, and (if you accepted that premise) asking if and why such terms would be sufficiently reasonable as to be enforceable in the present context. I don't see a problem. You change subscriber to renter/leaser/whatever and have the user sign the contract before purchasing the physical object. Enforcement would be much harder but that's the only change.
Again, I believe unconscionability clearly applies here. The Steam agreement can be easily misunderstood by a layman to govern the use of Steam itself, as opposed to the software "purchased" via that mechanism. Bargaining power is strongly one-sided, the terms (as you've admitted) overwhelmingly favor a single party, and there's no price disparity when purchasing through Steam sufficient to make it clear that the buyer is being reasonably compensated for agreeing to these terms. I disagree.
Compared to car or mortgage contracts it is very simple for a layman to understand. If this contract is unconscionable due to misunderstanding then every mortgage is as they are more complex.
Additionally the confusion you mention about ownership is not there. The contract has two different sections covering subscription and merchandise. It is very clear on the difference. 'software "purchased"' is your wording not theirs. Their's is "purchase a subscription" which is in no way misleading.
Bargaining power is in no way one sided. It is a voluntary purchase of a purely luxury item. Either side is free to decline without hardship.
The terms overwhelmingly favor one side. This is unfair but not unconscionable.
The price difference is irrelevant.
It's an unfair contract. Very unfair. But it's not unconscionable. It's really quite a brilliant strategy. Even public opinion doesn't seen to matter. There's been no repercussions when these clauses have been evoked en-mass. There especially has been none when envoked on an individual.
I expect these types of contracts to have a limited lifespan. My guess is that either a legislator will be personally angered or something involving a minor unable to accept the contract.
My argument, however, is that such a form contract -- allowing the "seller" to prevent the "buyer" from enjoying the use of a physical product at will, even if it does so by couching the use of said product as a pre-paid "subscription" The fact that the contract is a form contract is irrelevant. In my state all mortgages have to by law use a form contract.
You use the term "physical product". What is the physical product? My point at the start was that a physical product helps make you secure in ownership.
You agree that it is a subscription. You made that decision when you accepted what you say is a valid contract.
What reasonable person would agree to such a thing, if they believed that the seller would/could actually exercise such a clause? The existence of said clause shows intent. If they weren't planning on exercising the clause then the clause would not be in the contract.
I don't think it's reasonable to sign a contract that has such clauses in it.
The only precedent you've referenced is not squarely on-point. I don't see how. The precedent shows that Stream EULA is a binding legal contract. By agreeing to said contract you acknowledge that you are not purchasing anything, that you own nothing. That means that any debate of "purchase" or "ownership" is irrelevant. You already had your chance to object. You chose not to.
Going too far in that direction is hazardous. You've seen the folks getting smacked down lately for selling "free" software but burying details of a required subscription in the fine print, right? Steam is not too far in that direction. A pop up with accept/deny is not fine print nor buried.
Not relevant but I'm asking out of curiosity. Please define "smacked down". Has there been a judgment?
Something that always bothered me that's similar to this. On trucks and ads you'd see things like "visit us at www.companyname.com". That's a server not a web page. Does that now allow you to access anything on that server? They asked me to visit that server.
In the hypothetical situation you describe, that is bluntly and obviously what they're doing on its face, and the use of the term "subscription" in their agreement is simply disingenuous. You admit they're following the contract that you agreed to. Yet you claim you'd go to small claims to fight it. That would require you to admit to the judge that even though you think the contract is "disingenuous" that you'd agreed to it before hand and now no longer want it applied to you.
Depends on how good you are at spinning it to the judge; "subscription" has some implications which aren't applicable here. Without negotiability, however, it's hard to argue meeting-of-the-minds, making that contract more assailable than it might otherwise be. On the flip side we have legal precedent at the circuit/district level in Valve's favor. Valve is not required to negotiate. Declining every counter offer made and sticking to the original offer is completely legal.
Further, while the fine print might imply otherwise, Steam tells people to "buy" or "purchase" a game, which strongly implies a one-time payment in return for perpetual use; arguably, this conflation between purchase and subscription provides grounds to argue intentionally deceptive behavior on Valve's part. It does not imply it clearly states otherwise. There's no deception. As you said you have to agree to the contract before hand. Failure to read and/or understand a contract is not deception. Fine print is rock solid. Saying one thing and meaning another, but explaining in the fine print, is the norm in advertising.
How does couching it in terms of subscription make it less unconscionable or unjust to accept money in a transaction marketed and advertised as "purchase" or "sale" of an item, and later prevent the paid customer from enjoying the use of the item which was billed as "sold" without cause? It doesn't. It's completely unconscionable and unjust. But it's court tested and legal. This is _exactly_ the reason I refuse to give Valve a penny. You're the one who agreed to an, in your words, "unconscionable" and "unjust" contract.
I'll take my chances in small claims. You're willing to fight or rely on a no show. Remember a judgment is not a collection. I want a transaction in which there is no chance of a fight since it can't be arbitrarily reversed by one party. Thus we've made different choices.
Depends on just how unfair that contract is. "Selling" a product but then preventing the paid customer from enjoying its use without cause borders on unjust enrichment. They're not "preventing the paid customer from enjoying it's use without cause".
What they are doing is canceling a subscription in accordance to the contract both parties agreed on before the customer paid for the subscription. There's nothing unfair about that.
Just because some shrinkwrap licenses pass doesn't mean that ones which allow the product you purchased to be made unusable after-the-fact without cause do. It's not the post-purchase implicit agreement, here, that I'm intending to test -- which isn't on-point anyhow, since the Steam license agreement is presented before purchases can be made. A pre-purchase agreement has an even better chance of holding up. They enforced their side of the contract and "I don't like that." is not a reason for a contract to be overturned. An unfair contract is still valid and enforceable. Especially if you go into it eyes open which you admit you would be.
Because I don't expect problems so long as the other party acts in good faith -- and I see no reason to anticipate otherwise. If the other party was planning on acting in good faith then they would not have a draconian, one-sided, binding legal document for you to agree to before purchase.
Look -- even if the contract didn't purport to allow them to remote-disable software, they could still do that as a practical matter and it'd still go to court. There's always a level of trust in purchasing or using any software product, and this case is no different. That's exactly my point. You're trusting them, or rather it, to act in a way that it doesn't have to. Steam's end-user agreement indicates that Steam does not intend to act in the way you are trusting Steam to act. The only thing you can trust is that Steam will act in a manner laid out by the contract. Anything else is hope.
I live in a district/circuit where said licenses have been court tested. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). If the license is in a pop up that you have to accept in order to proceed with the install then it's valid and enforceable. The court has ruled that if you don't like the contract then don't agree to it. That was decided on appeal by Pro-CD. You won't get anywhere with small claims. As I understand it you'll have to go to SCOTUS to get it changed.
Second: Why would you purchase something when you admit that you'd have to go to court to resolve any problems? I admire being all grr spit I'll get them! However it's easier and cheaper to notice that the business practice sucks and the company doesn't deserve my money.
You forgot one other aspect of Steam. At any point they can render your purchases unusable by you.
Check your EULA. What does it say about guaranteeing access to the product you "purchased"?
Well first off they are very clear that you are not purchasing anything. "Steam is an online service." "You become a subscriber to Steam by installing the Steam client software. .." "...as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content ("Subscriptions") available to Subscribers." "Your license confers no title or ownership in the Steam Software."
Then my favorite:
"VALVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE OPERATION AND ACCESS TO STEAM, THE STEAM SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT AND/OR YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS(S)."
"Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time."
If you don't like it then you can fuck off according to them:
"YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE STEAM SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT."
These are not nice people.
At least with disc in drive DRM I'm the only person who controls if I have access to my purchase. Either through backups, or not damaging the disk, or nocd crack.
Actually there is nothing illegal about copying the phone book into a database. In Fiest Publications v Rural Telephone Service the SCOTUS found that a telephone directory was not protectable through copyright.
I saw with my own eyes an F1 crash that went as follows.
Driver takes turn 4 too fast and the wheel scraped the wall. The car flips and starts rolling. The vehicle broke into 3 parts. The driver compartment, the engine, and a cloud of debris. The driver compartment and the engine kept on down the track and the driver compartment hit the pit wall. Then the engine slid into the drive compartment. Everything came to a stop. The driver then climbed out of the engine compartment.
Sure the vehicle will be crushed into a fine pulp. It's designed to do that. It's a safety feature. Please see physics.
Between that and the cage the driver goes in I'd much rather be in an F1 than a commercial vehicle when confronted with an SUV collision.
Oh and this was about 15 years ago so the tech has only gotten better.
It's not the Communist Mentality. Something similar was related to me by my tour guide when I visited the Soviet Union. She said that resources were often so scarce that if you saw a line it meant that something was available so you tried to get it. It didn't matter what it was. If you didn't need/want it you could barter it.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation please.
What's the point of these things if they run off the grid? The grid is dirty power. These cars increase load on the grid thus increasing dirty power usage.
These things are nothing but spending large sums of money to feel like your making a different. They're not.
You have an article in which someone says that someone should be able to tell the different. That's all well and good but meaningless. It's some random person's opinion.
Please come back when you have a link to some sort of testing to see if there's any credibility to what this person thinks should happen.
It has been fun. Thanks for showing me that there can still be intelligent discussion here.
There is no procedural unconscionability since you have the option of not buying the product.
It is entirely clear that the document is binding in some manner. It is not clear that the document applies to the product being purchased, rather than to Steam itself. Now you're just being argumentative and contrary. It is perfectly clear that it is a contract, and perfectly clear that a subscription is being purchased."You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by installing the Steam client software and completing the Steam registration. Additionally, as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content ("Subscriptions") available to Subscribers."
"Each Subscription allows you access to certain services, software and other content under the terms of each such Subscription and this Agreement."
The contract explicitly differentiates between subscriptions and merchandise.
It's quite clear in the _Ownership_ section that you don't own anything.
Overwhelmingly favors one side which has superior bargaining power. This test is failed. As mentioned before there is no superior bargaining power. It's a pure luxury item. They have no means of compulsion. There is no damage to you for declining the contract. Again just because something is unfair does not mean it is unconscionable.
"Purchase a subscription" in not the wording they use when clicking on the button to indicate that one wishes to buy (what is presented as) a product; it may be the wording used in the license agreement subsequently displayed, We've already covered this under the fine print discussion. but (largely on account of that distinction) that license agreement's applicability to the ongoing transaction is not immediately clear to the layman, "This Steam Subscriber Agreement ("Agreement") is a legal document that explains your rights and obligations as a Subscriber. Please read it carefully." is perfectly clear to a layman. without implication as to the product being "purchased", as purchase of a product is the manner in which the transaction has been presented up to and until that point, and the language of the agreement itself is the only indication to the contrary Ad copy is not a contract. You admit that the contract explains that it is not a purchase of product. That's the contract's purpose. Again we're repeating the fine print discussion.Compared to car or mortgage contracts it is very simple for a layman to understand. If this contract is unconscionable due to misunderstanding then every mortgage is as they are more complex.
Additionally the confusion you mention about ownership is not there. The contract has two different sections covering subscription and merchandise. It is very clear on the difference. 'software "purchased"' is your wording not theirs. Their's is "purchase a subscription" which is in no way misleading.
Bargaining power is in no way one sided. It is a voluntary purchase of a purely luxury item. Either side is free to decline without hardship.
The terms overwhelmingly favor one side. This is unfair but not unconscionable.
The price difference is irrelevant.
It's an unfair contract. Very unfair. But it's not unconscionable. It's really quite a brilliant strategy. Even public opinion doesn't seen to matter. There's been no repercussions when these clauses have been evoked en-mass. There especially has been none when envoked on an individual.
I expect these types of contracts to have a limited lifespan. My guess is that either a legislator will be personally angered or something involving a minor unable to accept the contract.
That's an opt-out system that is hidden, akin to writing on the back of the page. I agree that is deceptive.
However Steam does not hide the information in that manner. They put it directly in front of you and ask you to accept it or not.
The line falls between the two.
You use the term "physical product". What is the physical product? My point at the start was that a physical product helps make you secure in ownership.
You agree that it is a subscription. You made that decision when you accepted what you say is a valid contract. What reasonable person would agree to such a thing, if they believed that the seller would/could actually exercise such a clause? The existence of said clause shows intent. If they weren't planning on exercising the clause then the clause would not be in the contract.
I don't think it's reasonable to sign a contract that has such clauses in it.
That's nice but completely off topic. We were talking about private spaces. You're talking about public spaces.
Name of company? Name of agency?
Not relevant but I'm asking out of curiosity. Please define "smacked down". Has there been a judgment?
If all you're doing is listening then the logic holds up.
Your logic falls apart when you start transmitting signals back to the router and using the network hardware that is located on private property.
Something that always bothered me that's similar to this. On trucks and ads you'd see things like "visit us at www.companyname.com". That's a server not a web page. Does that now allow you to access anything on that server? They asked me to visit that server.
What they are doing is canceling a subscription in accordance to the contract both parties agreed on before the customer paid for the subscription. There's nothing unfair about that.
Once you've decided to kill to accomplish your goals the idea of outlawing lesser acts than killing seems a little absurd.
I live in a district/circuit where said licenses have been court tested. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). If the license is in a pop up that you have to accept in order to proceed with the install then it's valid and enforceable. The court has ruled that if you don't like the contract then don't agree to it. That was decided on appeal by Pro-CD. You won't get anywhere with small claims. As I understand it you'll have to go to SCOTUS to get it changed.
Second: Why would you purchase something when you admit that you'd have to go to court to resolve any problems? I admire being all grr spit I'll get them! However it's easier and cheaper to notice that the business practice sucks and the company doesn't deserve my money.
You forgot one other aspect of Steam. At any point they can render your purchases unusable by you.
."
Check your EULA. What does it say about guaranteeing access to the product you "purchased"?
Well first off they are very clear that you are not purchasing anything.
"Steam is an online service."
"You become a subscriber to Steam by installing the Steam client software. .
"...as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content ("Subscriptions") available to Subscribers."
"Your license confers no title or ownership in the Steam Software."
Then my favorite:
"VALVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE OPERATION AND ACCESS TO STEAM, THE STEAM SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT AND/OR YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS(S)."
"Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time."
If you don't like it then you can fuck off according to them:
"YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE STEAM SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT."
These are not nice people.
At least with disc in drive DRM I'm the only person who controls if I have access to my purchase. Either through backups, or not damaging the disk, or nocd crack.
Actually there is nothing illegal about copying the phone book into a database. In Fiest Publications v Rural Telephone Service the SCOTUS found that a telephone directory was not protectable through copyright.
bah I mean driver compartment at the end of the second paragraph.
I saw with my own eyes an F1 crash that went as follows.
Driver takes turn 4 too fast and the wheel scraped the wall. The car flips and starts rolling. The vehicle broke into 3 parts. The driver compartment, the engine, and a cloud of debris. The driver compartment and the engine kept on down the track and the driver compartment hit the pit wall. Then the engine slid into the drive compartment. Everything came to a stop. The driver then climbed out of the engine compartment.
Sure the vehicle will be crushed into a fine pulp. It's designed to do that. It's a safety feature. Please see physics.
Between that and the cage the driver goes in I'd much rather be in an F1 than a commercial vehicle when confronted with an SUV collision.
Oh and this was about 15 years ago so the tech has only gotten better.
It's not the Communist Mentality. Something similar was related to me by my tour guide when I visited the Soviet Union. She said that resources were often so scarce that if you saw a line it meant that something was available so you tried to get it. It didn't matter what it was. If you didn't need/want it you could barter it.