Internet Explodes Over Origin's Invasion of Privacy

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Saulkar:

Iron Criterion:

Saulkar:

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I never said I did. Since I never said I did how could I did?

My god how old are you? And I never actually said you agreed to it but the point that you were making earlier was that legal terms trick people in signing up to something that they didn't agree with.

Why does my age affect how old I have to be to make a grammatical joke? (Since I never said I did how could I did) Seriously. Quote: Why would you agree to a TOS of you did not fully understand the legal ramifications :End Quote Yes you did tell me I agreed to it or you did not word your statement properly.

Are they trying to trick us? In most cases no? Where the fuck did I mention that they were trying to trick us? I am dead serious. Tell me so I can reiterate. In the end the point being that TOS/EULAs are written in a way that makes them excruciating to read and in the end few without a formal legal education actually understand what they read.

The implications of what you were stating were that the companies use legal jargon in order to confuse those reading them, in the hope that said person will want the product enough to blindly agree to the TOS or not bother reading it at all. You didn't explicitly state this but it was very much implied.

Glad I boycotted the company all those years ago. Really wanted to play Alice and Mass Effect 2 and 3, too. Oh well, they'll never see another penny of mine again.

MercurySteam:
See, here's why I buy most of my games for my 360. Consoles win again I guess.

Have you bothered to read any of the TOS's for consoles? They basically say that the OS on them is a license, so breaking any of their terms means they can lock you down effectively leaving you with an expensive paper weight (with the PS3 at least). Last I checked, that doesn't happen to PC's. At least with Origin it's an optional piece of software; you have the right to click "I do no agree" and life goes on. What happens if you do that on your Xbox?

Also this from the Xbox live user agreement

On topic: As much as I want to play Battlefield 3, I have principles, so I wont get it unless the boxed version is Origin free. (I'm well aware of the possibility that it will force me to, but we'll see about that when the time comes).

Abandon4093:

Glass Joe the Champ:
It's gonna be pretty easy for me to boycott Origin; I don't wanna buy BF3 anyway. ;)

#moreofanRPGfanreally

I think ME3 is an origin exclusive too.

And I really do want to play BF3. D:

But origin isn't touching my PC. I guess it'll have to be a 360 buy.
:(

Meh, I'm the kind of person who waits till they bundle the game with all the DLC and cut the price. By then, this whole debacle will be over. If not, there's always Skyrim.

Iron Criterion:

Saulkar:

Iron Criterion:

My god how old are you? And I never actually said you agreed to it but the point that you were making earlier was that legal terms trick people in signing up to something that they didn't agree with.

Why does my age affect how old I have to be to make a grammatical joke? (Since I never said I did how could I did) Seriously. Quote: Why would you agree to a TOS of you did not fully understand the legal ramifications :End Quote Yes you did tell me I agreed to it or you did not word your statement properly.

Are they trying to trick us? In most cases no? Where the fuck did I mention that they were trying to trick us? I am dead serious. Tell me so I can reiterate. In the end the point being that TOS/EULAs are written in a way that makes them excruciating to read and in the end few without a formal legal education actually understand what they read.

The implications of what you were stating was that the companies use legal jargon in order to confuse those reading them, in the hope that said person will want the product enough to blindly agree to the TOS or not bother reading it at all. You didn't explicitly state this but it was very much implied.

In that case I shall finish this conversation by saying that I did not purposely make a vague implication open to interpretation that companies write their EULA/TOS to confuse people and hope that they do not read the whole thing.

Iron Criterion:

Saulkar:

Iron Criterion:

My god how old are you? And I never actually said you agreed to it but the point that you were making earlier was that legal terms trick people in signing up to something that they didn't agree with.

Why does my age affect how old I have to be to make a grammatical joke? (Since I never said I did how could I did) Seriously. Quote: Why would you agree to a TOS of you did not fully understand the legal ramifications :End Quote Yes you did tell me I agreed to it or you did not word your statement properly.

Are they trying to trick us? In most cases no? Where the fuck did I mention that they were trying to trick us? I am dead serious. Tell me so I can reiterate. In the end the point being that TOS/EULAs are written in a way that makes them excruciating to read and in the end few without a formal legal education actually understand what they read.

The implications of what you were stating was that the companies use legal jargon in order to confuse those reading them, in the hope that said person will want the product enough to blindly agree to the TOS or not bother reading it at all. You didn't explicitly state this but it was very much implied.

That is exactly what most people do.

I don't think I can name one person I know in real life that reads a ToS other than me.

They are made to be intentionally long winded and confusing to baffle people.

They don't actually want you to read them. Just sign.

Glass Joe the Champ:

Abandon4093:

Glass Joe the Champ:
It's gonna be pretty easy for me to boycott Origin; I don't wanna buy BF3 anyway. ;)

#moreofanRPGfanreally

I think ME3 is an origin exclusive too.

And I really do want to play BF3. D:

But origin isn't touching my PC. I guess it'll have to be a 360 buy.
:(

Meh, I'm the kind of person who waits till they bundle the game with all the DLC and cut the price. By then, this whole debacle will be over. If not, there's always Skyrim.

I very much doubt it'll have blown over.

Origin is here for the long haul I think. Guess it's time to warm up my Xbox.

Abandon4093:

Iron Criterion:

Saulkar:

Why does my age affect how old I have to be to make a grammatical joke? (Since I never said I did how could I did) Seriously. Quote: Why would you agree to a TOS of you did not fully understand the legal ramifications :End Quote Yes you did tell me I agreed to it or you did not word your statement properly.

Are they trying to trick us? In most cases no? Where the fuck did I mention that they were trying to trick us? I am dead serious. Tell me so I can reiterate. In the end the point being that TOS/EULAs are written in a way that makes them excruciating to read and in the end few without a formal legal education actually understand what they read.

The implications of what you were stating was that the companies use legal jargon in order to confuse those reading them, in the hope that said person will want the product enough to blindly agree to the TOS or not bother reading it at all. You didn't explicitly state this but it was very much implied.

That is exactly what most people do.

I don't think I can name one person I know in real life that reads a ToS other than me.

They are made to be intentionally long winded and confusing to baffle people.

They don't actually want you to read them. Just sign.

I am guilty of this myself. A thousand times over. Therefore even though it is an immoral practice, we only really have ourselves to blame.

Ok, I'm definitely buying the console version.
Origin will never find it's way onto my PC.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Fucking EA! Hard. Copies. Come on people! I don't want to be the guy who's telling everyone to "Go back to horses, motors are just a fad!" but seriously!

...but hard copy still requires origin ... doesn't it?

I dunno I was going to get it regardless. Stupid really but it's gorgeous. It's a tiny pro for a fuck-tonnage of cons, but I've stopped caring.

Someone tell me if the secondary Windows account ploy would work. That would ease my worries.

Ok, on a lot of threads about origin, I have stated it will fail epicly. This proves my point further.

Iron Criterion:

Abandon4093:

Iron Criterion:

The implications of what you were stating was that the companies use legal jargon in order to confuse those reading them, in the hope that said person will want the product enough to blindly agree to the TOS or not bother reading it at all. You didn't explicitly state this but it was very much implied.

That is exactly what most people do.

I don't think I can name one person I know in real life that reads a ToS other than me.

They are made to be intentionally long winded and confusing to baffle people.

They don't actually want you to read them. Just sign.

I am guilty of this myself. A thousand times over. Therefore even though it is an immoral practice, we only really have ourselves to blame.

No, we should blame the companies.

Expecting us to read anywhere from 10-30 pages of legal jargon everytime we buy a product or download a program is obscene.

Abandon4093:

Iron Criterion:

Abandon4093:

That is exactly what most people do.

I don't think I can name one person I know in real life that reads a ToS other than me.

They are made to be intentionally long winded and confusing to baffle people.

They don't actually want you to read them. Just sign.

I am guilty of this myself. A thousand times over. Therefore even though it is an immoral practice, we only really have ourselves to blame.

No, we should blame the companies.

Expecting us to read anywhere from 10-30 pages of legal jargon everytime we buy a product or download a program is obscene.

I agree, it is an immoral and nefarious practice. But unfortunately one that is not currently illegal.

I think the most I've read of any ToS/EULA was MAYBE two and a half pages worth of overly complicated wording for simple statements. This is our stuff, so do not copy it and claim it's your own original work. Do not hack or intentionally exploit for the sake of cheating. Simple stuff like that, but with an entire paragraph dedicated to saying it with words that not even a thesaurus would help simplify.

Expecting a person to sit through over a dozen pages of loopholes and ass covering is ridiculous. It only profits the companies with the money to spend on teams of lawyers to write the documents and sniff out any violators to sue for outlandish sums.

Iron Criterion:

Abandon4093:

Iron Criterion:

I am guilty of this myself. A thousand times over. Therefore even though it is an immoral practice, we only really have ourselves to blame.

No, we should blame the companies.

Expecting us to read anywhere from 10-30 pages of legal jargon everytime we buy a product or download a program is obscene.

I agree, it is an immoral and nefarious practice. But unfortunately one that is not currently illegal.

That is certainly something that needs remedying.

Abandon4093:

ReiverCorrupter:

No, as I said, the lender can make the agreement whatever they want because it's up to the user whether they want to buy it.

I know what they can do, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to.

This practice needs to be eradicated. It's not reasonable to demand things like private information for the right to play a video game. A ToS should be just that.

The Terms of Service. It should only be concerned with what the consumer is allowed to do with the product/service. Not what the company can scam out of unwitting people.

I don't see any reason why a ToS should be so one sided. Sure it's greedy of them to include all the extra stuff beyond restricting the actions of the user, but still, it's their service and they can charge you what they want for it. Once again, you don't have to buy it. Being greedy in-and-of-itself is no crime. It might be morally wrong on some level but it's hardly illegal nor should it be.

Abandon4093:

ReiverCorrupter:

The issue is whether it is hidden in legal jargon, otherwise the consumer can sign away whatever rights they want, they don't have to buy the product. I'm not saying it's right. I don't like it at all. It just isn't a matter of law unless they are doing unscrupulous things in the presentation of the agreement. If you don't like it then boycott it. Use your power as a consumer.

It may be simplified to some degree, but it's still jargon that a lot of people won't fully understand. And as I said to someone else, with any contract, there has to be implied understanding on both parties. It's pretty clear a lot of people who signs these things don't fully understand them.

Mmm... if you say so, I haven't ever seen anything that hasn't used plain language, but I might be underestimating the average person's stupidity. But even so, at a certain point it's still up to the consumer. It isn't the fault of the company that people don't read the agreement before they agree. The fact of the matter is that they still check the freaking box that says "I have read, fully understood and agree to all of the above terms and conditions." No matter which way you slice it people shouldn't be doing that if they haven't read the contract. Now if they did read it and still didn't understand it they still shouldn't check the box. The only way that it wouldn't be their fault is if they read the thing and thought that they understood it but actually didn't. In that case there is obviously something deceitful in the way the agreement was presented, but I don't think that's the case with most people. I think most people don't bother to read the damn thing, and that's their fault.

Abandon4093:

And I'm not buying it, or allowing origin to touch my PC. But I hesitate to call it a boycott. We have very little power as a consumer. We all like to think we do, but in reality, when is the last time a boycott worked, or even happened. The only decider in product quality, that's all that can really influence a large enough amount of people for it to matter. Not shady business practice. And sometimes it's just brand name alone that sells something, not even quality.

You seem to be arguing for something as radical as the fact that the general public is incapable of entering into a contract. I agree that petty user agreements should be able to be consented to without the presence of a lawyer, but that only implies that the language should be regulated, not the content. There is no way that we should pass legislation that restricts the content of a license agreement simply because people are too lazy to read it and make unfounded assumptions.

Abandon4093:

I still think we should have a regulations board that makes sure these things are as straight forward as they can be for the average Joe and that they contain clauses that only directly pertain to the service or product you're signing it for.

No matter how they spin it. The clause in question is only to give them the right to sell information to third parties. That's not right.

Well... I'll tell you what... I'm starting to see your point. I still disagree as to whether they should be allowed to include these types of conditions in their agreements, but I'll make a compromise with you and say that we should pass legislation that clearly separates out the negative commitments (like not making copies of the games), and the positive additional clauses like accessing and sharing your personal information into two parts of the agreement. A lot of agreements already do something like this, there are two separate boxes one for agreeing not to steal and one for allowing them to access your data. While they should definitely still be allowed to make you check both boxes before accessing the product, it would at least help protect the consumer and make it easier for them to spot shady crap. How's that?

Abandon4093:

Iron Criterion:

Abandon4093:

No, we should blame the companies.

Expecting us to read anywhere from 10-30 pages of legal jargon everytime we buy a product or download a program is obscene.

I agree, it is an immoral and nefarious practice. But unfortunately one that is not currently illegal.

That is certainly something that needs remedying.

Most definitely. I don't really know enough about the law to know if it would be possible or not.

Whelp, time to buy mass effect 3, play the ever-loving hell outta it and then uninstall. Kiss my 60-100 dollar game goodbye and hope i wrested my money's worth outta it..but since there seems to be a little confusion about hard copy's and this at best I'll buy the disk. At worst, pirate

That's... that's just wrong. Thank god I never signed up for it. How the hell can they get away with that though? What do they even need with all that porn info anyway?

Between this news and the Gamestop news I have a hard time swallowing why anyone would advocate allotting more power to the corporate sector. They clearly view themselves as our superiors. They would swallow our every liberty if given the chance and the only barrier between that and the current reality is our ability to watch out for ourselves and dare I say it... Quite possibly organizing a response that requires us mustering a little self-restraint?

"Gee guys, I dunno, I'm actually maybe starting to consider thinking twice about buying battlefeild 3 now" Is wishy washy cop out talk. You'll buy it for sure with that lilly livered attitude. That needs to be replaced with: "I have some principals and fucking self respect and I can pass on putting 70 dollars into the pocket of someone who views me as a foot stool."

NOOOOOOOO I wanted battlefield 3 so badly.....why do you keep doing this to yourself EA WHYYYYY?

Another reason to stick to consoles, I guess.

Abandon4093:

There is implied understanding with any contract that is singed. And it's pretty clear that not everybody who signs these things understands them. This is an issue that no one seems to be addressing.

I decided to truncate some of the less useful arguing and focus on data that isn't doubting my reading ability. So you are aware I know what your central point is. Just to get all the Ad-homenim out of the way; you will not convince me of anything if your only argument is: Clearly you disagree with me so you must have not been reading.

You seem to think that games aren't important enough to warrant an end user agreement. Fact of the matter is these things are in place for a reason. To protect EA just as much as you. The reason you have to pretend you are reading is so if you or EA violate the agreement there is a clear piece of evidence that shows you both "understand" what was going on. So yes, people who said they read it and didn't will be less aware of the EA's intrusion into their computer; however, your computer is a responsibility. If you don't know what you are putting on it then who's fault is that?

Companies are always going to be playing "I'm not touching you" with your rights and just like your mother said on that long ride to the Epcot Center: "Just don't give her the satisfaction"

No one at EA is trying to spread your information about town. They are using it for their own greedy ends. You seem to be angry that the only recourse is to read any document some business man hands you big or small. Sorry buddy but in an age where you are ALWAYS emitting personal and valuable info it is no big surprise that part of the end user agreement is to let EA use that to "better serve" you.

Tos's and End-user agreements will be here for a long long time. Your likes, dislikes, strange porn, half finished scripts and music interests are useful to the people who make your interactive media. If you do not want people grabbing at your personal info then you cannot buy EA games through Origin. So there are three options you can choose from without being a whiner:

1. Buy the game and make piece with the fact that somewhere in EA's server room they have a copy of your catboylyaoi.jpeg on their server.

2. Not buy it and have nothing to do with such a privacy invading ToS.

3. Pirate (but don't; that is wrong)

ReiverCorrupter:
snip for brevity

I think the main issue is whether we should be expected to read and agree to a 10-30 page legal document every time we want to buy a product or download a program.

I get that the majority of consumers just need to become more aware of what they're singing. But giving people large legal documents for items as common and meaningless as games is a little ridiculous. It's not like it's a car or a house.

I also still think that giving the company the ability to demand things such as the handing over of rights in a document such as this is underhanded. I'm still of the thought that a ToS should be just that. It should only pertain to the regulations demanded of item or service your singing it for. That shouldn't include the signing over of rights.

A legal document such as this for such frivolous products and services is silly. We're being bogged down with litigation that a lot of people won't understand.

But to be honest, I can't think of a viable alternative to a ToS. Because the company does need to keep rights for it's product/service. But the expectation that we should read large documents for such inconsequential paraphernalia is obscene. And frankly, most of what is in there doesn't apply to your average customer. It's to stop people from abusing the service. Most people won't.

So we've essentially been burdened with this because a few jackasses will find a way to abuse the things.

It just doesn't seem right to me.

never cared about the BF games so BF3 is not on my list. i think EA wants to look bad or just try different ways to get to money since they cant do new games by them self but instead support other companies like bioware with mass effect.
proofs again that valve is the best company around and makes pc friendly great games. EA will always be on my black list.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Fucking EA! Hard. Copies. Come on people! I don't want to be the guy who's telling everyone to "Go back to horses, motors are just a fad!" but seriously!

You may or may not have heard this before, but just in case.

Even if you buy a hard copy of Battlefield 3, you still need Origin to play it, and they may start doing that with other games too.
<_> Yeah....Fucking EA....

Let's hope this gets the attention of anonymous...

Jay Fakename:

Abandon4093:

4. There is a difference between buying a game and buying a house, or getting a loan, or buying a car. All of these things require a very detailed contract that you can have explained to you if you don't fully understand it.

There is implied understanding with any contract that is singed. And it's pretty clear that not everybody who signs these things understands them. This is an issue that no one seems to be addressing.

I decided to truncate some of the less useful arguing and focus on data that isn't doubting my reading ability. Just to get all the Ad-homenim out of the way. You will not convince me of anything if your only argument is: Clearly you disagree with me so you must have not been reading.

You seem to think that games aren't important enough to warrant an end user agreement. Fact of the matter is these things are in place for a reason. To protect EA just as much as you. The reason you have to pretend you are reading is so if you or EA violate the agreement there is a clear piece of evidence that shows you both "understand" what was going on. So yes, people who said they read it and didn't will be less aware of the EA's intrusion into their computer; however, your computer is a responsibility. Companies are always going to be playing "I'm not touching you" with your rights and just like your mother said on that long ride to the Epcot Center: "Just don't give her the satisfaction"

No one at EA is trying to spread your information about town. They are using it for their own greedy ends. You seem to be angry that the only recourse is to read any document some business man hands you big or small. Sorry buddy but in an age where you are ALWAYS emitting personal and valuable info it is no big surprise that part of the end user agreement is to let EA use that to "better serve" you.

Tos's and End-user agreements will be here for a long long time. Your likes, dislikes, strange porn, half finished scripts and music interests are useful to the people who make your interactive media. If you do not want people grabbing at your personal info then you cannot buy EA games through Origin. So there are three options you can choose from without being a whiner:

1. Buy the game and make piece with the fact that somewhere in EA's server room they have a copy of your catboylyaoi.jpeg on their server.

2. Not buy it and have nothing to do with such a privacy invading ToS.
Remember there are parts about

3. Pirate (but don't; that is wrong)

I've got into this in much more detail with someone else in this thread. Go read those for a full rebuttal as I've already addressed most of it and cannot be bothered repeating myself in the same amount of detail.

I will however do the cliff notes.

A ToS should only be about the terms of service. They should not be about hiding questionable rights to steal information.

My issue is that there needs to be stricter regulation on what companies can include in a ToS.

And you seem to be assuming that I'm not understanding the situation... why?

I've told you numerous times that I'm not going to have any involvement with Origin. That doesn't mean I've somehow forfeited the right to complain about the shady business practices that a lot of companies are putting in ToS agreements. They're abusing them.

Just buy the hardcopy. It isn't that hard.

ReiverCorrupter:

Jay Fakename:

Saulkar:

Some people use ignorance like a shield. However, shields are awesome. Ignorance is more like a table in a gunfight; Sure you no longer see the danger but that doesn't stop the bullets does it?

Um ok, I will never talk to you again since I cannot get an answer without being screamed at. Further more I do not acknowledge a single word you said.

I used caps for the quote from the ToS language as it was on the first post and capitalized "taking your shit" because typing that all in again would take too long. I'm sorry my capitalization has offended you and I hope someday we can be friends again.

Lulz. I doubt that he even read the post.

RiouChan:
Just buy the hardcopy. It isn't that hard.

Are you not privy to the fact that the hard copy still requires you to install Origin?

How do so many people still not know this?

We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you.

It won't show your name supposedly. So if you get something that proves otherwise, can you sue the tits off of EA?

Scratch another game I'm not even going to bother buying because of pathetic companies.

First Rage and it's shitty DRM and cutting out a chunk of Single-player to second hand buyers.

Next Battlefield 3 which looked really good to play and was one of the games I really wanted to play.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Said it. Underlined it. Internet took notice at last.

Given Ubisoft as well, can't PEGI or someone bring in someone to check up on these damn things?

Well, at least we get this warning. It's nice to find this out before everyone gets Origin for Battlefield 3. I'm just sad for the real loyal EA fans who already got it to try and support them. Hopefully they change this, but.....yeah.....

OK, I know this might have been said and will definitely get buried, but the people who read this are absolutely numb to the law. What is says is not what people think it says. I guess you just have to have a law degree and some understanding about what effect contract language has beyond what the words seem to mean.

I'm not saying you guys are... uneducated. But you're not lawyers, that's for sure.

I could tell you that the TOS does not allow them to see what programs you have on your computer OTHER THAN their own. They can see your hardware, so that's something, I guess. But they can't see who you are, so how bad is it?

I can tell you they won't be able to watch your porn collection or know what sick things you do with downloaded Facebook photos...

But nobody will believe me anyway because you're all convinced that "companies are evil" and "my privacy is soooooo important" and "anyone can understand legal contracts" (the last one I honestly believed until I read your reactions to this TOS segment).

OK, go back to complaining, I'll leave you guys alone now.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here