4 ms·
> people often don't understand the terms of there agreements To me the problem is that we allowed corporations to invoke complex legal maneuvering such as red
by Timmah 8y ago
> people often don't understand the terms of there agreements
To me the problem is that we allowed corporations to invoke complex legal maneuvering such as redefining the legal definition of watching a movie, and requiring a legal agreement to do so, all for the purpose of further enriching apple and the movie industry.
Also I dispute whether it is an "agreement" after all. Did each consumer sit down and read a printed contract, forward it to their counsel for review, then sign on the dotted line before they watched The Incredibles 2 ? No, they didn't. There wasnt an "agreement" but rather a surrender of previously existing legal rights.
In fact, I think all these one-sided contracts should be called "rights surrenders" instead of "license agreements". By clicking "I surrender", you are now allowed to watch your digital copy of The Incredibles 2 some indeterminate non-zero number of times before it's randomly removed from your possession
- mbostleman 8y agoAgreed. If there was no agreement, then there's definitely something to talk about. My position relies entirely on there being an enforceable agreement. Much popular debate these days ignores this fact and focuses instead on whether or not people think agreements are "fair" after they've been entered in to voluntarily.
- irishsultan 8y agoWhy "non-zero"? If you do not watch it immediately it still can be removed, unless I'm missing something?