Skip navigation

FORUMS_

1836 Views     32 Replies
1836 Views 31 Replies Latest reply: Feb 12, 2013 4:53 PM by sennalike RSS
Izjar11 Master 7,231 posts since
Nov 14, 2011

Ignorance is not an Excuse! COD (semi wall of text)

Posted by Izjar11 on Feb 12, 2013 6:16 AM

COD,

 

Yesterday afternoon I got into a back and forth with some dudes on Activisions Terms & Agreement. I wanted to address this matter alittle further in an attempt to help you (not to contradict you as a fellow gamer). Like in many things in life, the better educated you are the better you know what your rights are and what to expect. Again Ignorance to the Terms is not an excuse:

 

So here is the link to Activisions terms: http://store.activision.com/store/atvi/en_US/Content/pbPage.eula_black_ops?resid =URpEKwoBAlYAADvq6IUAAAAm&rests=1360675883273

 

Please read it:

 

Ok first thing:

 

What is software licensing? This is an agreement that grants a right to use software code to someone else. A license usually grants less rights than a sale of a copy of the software. The rights to use the code are defined by the terms of the license.

 

Now this part of the agreement is tricky and I will try to explain it:

 

LIMITED SOFTWARE WARRANTY. Activision warrants to the original consumer purchaser of this Program that the recording medium on which the Program is recorded will be free from defects in material and workmanship for 90 days from the date of purchase. If the purchaser finds the recorded medium of the Program defective within 90 days of original purchase, Activision agrees to replace, free of charge, such recorded medium of the Program discovered to be defective within such period upon its receipt of the recorded medium of the Program, as long as the Program is still being manufactured by Activision. In the event that the Program is no longer available, Activision retains the right to substitute a similar product of equal or greater value. This warranty is limited to the recording medium of the Program as originally provided by Activision and is not applicable to normal wear and tear. This warranty shall not be applicable and shall be void if the defect has arisen through abuse, mistreatment or neglect. This remedy is the purchaser’s sole, exclusive remedy, and is in lieu of all other express warranties. Any implied warranties on this product prescribed by statute, including but not limited to an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are expressly limited in duration to the 90-day period described above. Activision reserves the right to modify this warranty prospectively at any time and from time to time in our sole discretion.

 

Ok, so it states they will replace the recording medium if defective, meaning and they are referring to the CD not the program that governer's the game. I know its tricky, but that's why they hire lawyers to come up with these words.

 

Now here goes the real grit:

 

WARRANTY DISCLAIMER.

TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ACTIVISION DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE PRODUCT WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, THAT DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED, THAT THE PRODUCT IS FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS, OR THAT ALL OF THE PRODUCT CONTENT WILL BE ACCURATE. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ACTIVISION EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

 

This final in bold disclaimer states they (activision) does not warrant that the product will be error-free.

 

One final note COD, I do not necessarily agree to these terms but I play their game and that is a privilege not a right. I do not want to argue with anyone about what they believe is right or wrong. The matter of fact is these companies have prepared themselves through these TERMS to address issues that their products might or might not cause.

1836 Views     
  • ghamorra Master 8,819 posts since
    Sep 17, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated

    Great post, thanks for bring this up and adressing this

      • zvers Master 3,598 posts since
        May 24, 2011
        Currently Being Moderated

        Well, many are young kids who have been taught through out there indoctrination, I mean, education that they are special and nothing is above them. They have no idea how basic laws in society work. What your rights as a citizen really cover. Or how companies do have protections, otherwise, they would all be sued into oblivion leaving no business's left to make wealth in society. I guess it can be complicated but acting naive about it is not the right way to approach ANYTHING in life IMO.

        • Highwayman0226 Apprentice 1,264 posts since
          Sep 22, 2012
          Currently Being Moderated

               This was going to be my response.  It's a generation that has been taught that they have the right to everything.

  • phxs72 Master 3,652 posts since
    Feb 29, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated

    Right and wrong as well as should be and should not be are best reserved for philisophical discussions and have no bearing in legal matters.  While there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, too many people lose track of the difference between their opinion of moral justice and what is actually going to happen from a legal perspective.  We all have opinions of what should be and I'd imagine that many of us as consumers would write the agreement up quite differently if we were able to but that is irrelevant.  By opening the package, we all agreed to abide by the legal position that Activision laid out.  So if one intends to fight the system then they had better immerse themselves in the details of that system and leave their opinions out of it, if they would like to see a positive outcome.

  • ladylucina Expert 1,754 posts since
    Dec 18, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated

    Great post. thank you Izjar

    • onlyzeone Novice 361 posts since
      Nov 14, 2012
      Currently Being Moderated

      The most important line in the Waranty Disclaimer is the first one.

       

      TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW

       

      Each country has its own laws concerning consumer products and services. They will supercede this agreement if applicable.

      • onlyzeone Novice 361 posts since
        Nov 14, 2012
        Currently Being Moderated

        In Ireland and the EU this warranty wouldn't stand, nor would it in most developed countries that have their own laws to deal with goods and services.

        • onlyzeone Novice 361 posts since
          Nov 14, 2012
          Currently Being Moderated

          I am not against what you write, I am trying to widen its perspective. Even though Activision say they are in no way responsible for whatever their product does or does not do, this is not legal. You are saying we are being ignorant by not being aware of the ToS, I think it is worse if a person is not aware of their consumer law as this influences everything we buy across every spectrum. Consumer law is the one that matters.

           

          Personally in my case my playstation has been having error 80010514 coming up since I've had to reboot my playstation 40 to 50 times due only to bo2. My ps3 is 25 months old. 8 out of 10 times I get this error code before the game will load. I like the game I want it to work properly. I have spoken to Activision, Sony, Gamestop(where I bought both the console and the game) and also the Consumer Protection Agency. I tried all the fixes Sony gave me. I did not want to try anything that would interfere with the actual unit as they could then use this as an excuse.

           

          The more I found out about my rights the more info I got from each company. Playstation comes with a one year standard warranty but consumer law can protect you up to 6 years from purchase depending on the circumstances. Sony only give a one year warranty, GameStop told me they would have covered it up to two years but as they were aware of consumer law they referred me back to a person in Sony. Sony first wanted to charge me €120 to get it fixed. I got onto the consumer protection agency. They gave me a whole load of stuff to say to them, end result, going to be fixed free by Sony. No company wants to do anything for free or accept any responsibility for their issues, naturally their ToS will reflect this. However nothing they say can interfere with your rights if you are willing to take it ar enough.

      • ghamorra Master 8,819 posts since
        Sep 17, 2011
        Currently Being Moderated

        I'm pretty sure each version of the game sold has a different agreement. If not, you must follow the terms given to you regardless if your own country has consumer laws that supercede that which, say, Activision layout. By purchasing something you agree, end of story

          • onlyzeone Novice 361 posts since
            Nov 14, 2012
            Currently Being Moderated

            Simple question.

             

            Are ye saying that the ToS (that you have not read or agreed to until the product is paid for) will win over Consumer Law?

             

            A yes or no will do.

            • phxs72 Master 3,652 posts since
              Feb 29, 2012
              Currently Being Moderated

              I'll butt in here.  The waranties first line is "to the extent of applicable law" as you've stated which does mean that portions of the contract can be deemed invalid.  However, most contracts also include a severability statement which states that if one portion of the contract is deemed invalid by law the remaining portions will remain in effect.  So even if you win the arguement that you couldn't read the contract until after opening the package, you still are obligated to honor the terms if you choose to use the product after opening the package.  There may be some other specific items within the contract that won't stand up if tested but again for the most common complaints such as "I don't like the DLC so I want my money back" there is a very limited window (if one even exists) to make these claims and generally folks wait until that time has past before making them.  The contract also says that the software is not warantied to be free of defects and they are not obligated to fix those defects.  I don't think that anyone would have trouble getting their money refunded on day one or even for a short time thereafter if they deemed the defects troubling enough; however, continued use of the product past the reasonable time for correction would most likely be construed as an acceptance of the product as is.  So an understanding of Consumer Law is needed if you are attempting to invalidate the agreement but it will not render the agreement entirely null.

            • Highwayman0226 Apprentice 1,264 posts since
              Sep 22, 2012
              Currently Being Moderated

                   When you purchase a car or appliance, you are aware of the companies warranty at the time of purchase.  Why is there a politician involved saying the companies warranty isn't good enough?  I would say laws are needed in cases where a product does physical harm to a person, but in cases where a video game doesn't work the way you expect/desire?  Seems like a waste of time to me.

              • onlyzeone Novice 361 posts since
                Nov 14, 2012
                Currently Being Moderated

                A yes or no will do???

                 

                The question wasn't answered.

                 

                Fine if you cannot answer the question.

                  • mn7_la Apprentice 540 posts since
                    Aug 3, 2012
                    Currently Being Moderated

                    I hate to intervene, especially in an otherwise "dead" conversation (like the one between OP & onlyzeone). Hopefully no one reads too much into this comment.

                    .

                    lzjar11:

                    I've already specified on a comment (that can be found below) that each case will be judged on it's particular merits. However, you've asked "onlyzeone" multiple times "the case was won because the defendant was able to "supercede" said terms". I'd like to reiterate that *even if* there was one case (or there were 10 or 100 previous law-suits) that were won fitting this scenario - that will not automatically mean a potential law-suit against 3arc/AV will have the same result.

                    .

                    Here's some interesting links:

                    http://www.cnbc.com/id/35988343/page/6

                    http://www.cnbc.com/id/35988343/page/10

                    http://www.cnbc.com/id/35988343/page/11

                    .

                    Question: Do you think in each or any of the above cases - did the defendant "NOT" create similar statements in their contracts? Specifically - will Walmart or any other giant corporation NOT HAVE proper contractual agreements with the employees - especially to prevent getting sued by a disgruntled employee? OF COURSE - they do. And yet - we did have a class-action law-suit (eventually the Supreme Court did rule in favor of the defendant, Walmart).

                    .

                    Breast implant class-action, OTOH, actually ended in the plaintiff's favor. Here's a NY  Times article from March 1994.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/24/us/3-companies-in-landmark-accord-on-lawsuits- over-breast-implants.html

                    .

                    See this line, in particular, "The manufacturers say there is no scientific evidence that the implants are harmful"

                    .

                    Even so - they (the provider of the product/service) agreed to the "largest settlement" of it's kind in US history.

                    .

                    If a product or service is "defective" & has caused *tangible, quantifiable, verifiable* negative-effects IRRESPECTIVE of what terms have been laid out by the provider, a law-suit *MAY BE* filed. The law-suit may end in the defendant's favor - we can't foretell the judgement.

                    .

                    In other words - we can NOT tell any consumer that "because" they agreed to the Terms-n-Agreements - they lose all their rights & they necessarily have no judicial recourse.

                    .

                    NOTE: Those example law-suits are definitely of a much more "real-life" & serious nature - than any video-game law-suit I can imagine. So, I'm not comparing these things. And I certainly don't beleive that anyone will go through all the trouble for a $ 60 game (I know I WILL NOT).

                    .

                    MN

                    • onlyzeone Novice 361 posts since
                      Nov 14, 2012
                      Currently Being Moderated

                      I have no intention ongoing legal either, I had a problem with my ps3 that I say was caused by bo2, at first I was told I would have to pay to get it fixed, now Sony said they will do it for me as part of warranty, even though my ps is almost 2.5 years old.

          • gambit1969 Master 2,938 posts since
            May 11, 2012
            Currently Being Moderated

            I always enjoy how threads like these bring out the jailhouse lawyers.

             

            Thanks for the amusement Ego...

        • mn7_la Apprentice 540 posts since
          Aug 3, 2012
          Currently Being Moderated

          ghamorra:

          .

          Your statement "By purchasing something you agree, end of story" reminds me of this:

          .

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/13/saudi-arabia-treatment-foreign-worke rs

          .

          They too put their signature where an employer asked them to - and ended up being in a really-bad-state. I guess - you would tell them - "you agreed to any such treatement by your employer by putting your signature - now face the consequences". [Provided the employer put a statement in the contract saying that "the Employer has no liability on any health hazard or other suffering experienced by the employee while working or as a result of the work"]

          .

          Sorry for stretching things A LOT - but if you do extrapolate your statement "By purchasing something you agree, end of story" - that's one of the most extreme interpretations, unfortunately.

          .

          MN

  • rlbl Master 6,076 posts since
    Sep 8, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated

    Thanks Izzy

     

    I guess if we do not wish to eat spiders, we always have the choice not to buy the peanut butter...

  • Highwayman0226 Apprentice 1,264 posts since
    Sep 22, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated

         This is just farther proof of what we've been saying.  The only voice we really have is to not buy the product any longer.  It's worse every year, and we every year, we act surprised that the game is broken and not working properly.

  • TheBeastlyDude Master 2,340 posts since
    Nov 1, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated

    Izjar11, Thank you for the post and ignore the wannabe lawyers in this thread. If they were able to do anything, someone would have done it by now. As a Libertarian, this thread is one of the most beautiful things I have read in the insanity that is ToS agreements.

  • mn7_la Apprentice 540 posts since
    Aug 3, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated

    Similar contracts are agreed up-on by various businesses dealing with both end-users & other businesses - but that doesn't prevent a Class-Action law-suit.

    .

    Bottom-line: Each case is judged based on it's specific merits. While there may be precedents - we can't truly make conclusions on judicial matters.

    .

    Personally - I don't think 3arc/AV are going to face a law-suit - at least not in the foreseeable future. And, if they do - it would probably be from "parents-groups" or some such activist group (which, more often than not will have some relationship with political groups or certain conservative entities).

    .

    Just my $ 0.02.

    .

    MN

    .

    NOTE: "but I play their game and that is a privilege not a right"  - that point I disagree to. When I provide a product or service to my customer - I don't see it as the customer's "privilege" that I meet their expectation. Let's say I'm "Joe the Plumber" - will it be the "privilege" of a customer that the pipes work for 3 months after I've done repairs - or is it their "right"? It doesn't matter what contract-terms I put-up on my website or my product - a judiciary body will, IMO, not ignore the underlying facts/events "simply because" I put out a statement on my website saying "if my plumbing works results in loss I'm not responsible for it". Again - not a lawyer - just a lay-person. And not a fact - just a thought/opinion (chances are I'm wrong - and I don't deny that).

  • Pyric Apprentice 864 posts since
    Nov 25, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated

    There's more than just one "semi-wall of text" in this thread, and there aint room for the both of 'em.

  • sennalike Master 3,724 posts since
    Jul 28, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated

    Nice post Izjar.

     

    Laws are a funny thing.  My understanding is when we buy a CoD game we are buying the campaign.  Anything else is a bonus and we have no rights that I am aware of in respect of multiplayer.  Doesn't matter that the multiplayer aspect is why most of us buy the game.  Activision can switch off the servers tomorrow and there is nothing anyone could do.

     

    Maybe a bit of a side issue, but worth mentioning.  Here in the UK many shops will tell consumers to go back to manufacturers if goods are faulty, but reality is the law says the consumer has a contract with the retailer and if the goods can be proven to be faulty at the point of sale then the retailer must provide a full refund.  The retailer then has to take it up with the manufacturer whom they will have a contract with from when the goods were bought for onward distribution.  This applies to anything sold in the UK.  Not many people know this and many high street big name stores will blatantly lie telling consumers they have to go back to the manufacturer.  It's been on our TV consumer programme Watchdog in the past.

     

    I've put in bold the key part, because that is where it all gets really tricky.

Bookmarked By (1)