You can't sue Microsoft either now.

[o.pwuaioc]

Yes, I'm aware they're not doing anything illegal. Companies do have an incentive to do morally well. The people ought to not excuse what they find unethical, to stand for what they truly believe in, and use their purchasing power to show a company that what they're doing is wrong by not buying their product. We ought to not just excuse these companies because what they're doing is legal, rather we ought to boycott them because what they're doing is wrong. Obviously if those who see no harm at all do not boycott, then that is their constitutional right. But for those who do see harm, why not boycott? That method shouldn't just be left to extremists.

I mostly agree with this, but frankly (with apologies to Inazuma) I don't think boycotting is a viable strategy in cases like this (or almost any case, anymore - can you come up with recent successful boycotts of large companies?). I don't think pollution laws were enacted because of boycotting, I think they were enacted because of intelligent lobbying of the right politicians, good legal arguments presented in courts, voting, careful scientific research, etc. If you want to change this law and "stick it" to the companies for acting in a way that you find immoral you'll need to do something similar.

Incidentally, this is my same beef with the Occupy folks. I am extremely sympathetic to their claims, but as someone who studies and writes about activism professionally, it seems abundantly clear that their choice of tactics for creating change are (and will probably continue to be) horribly ineffective. Despite my "defense" of business in this thread, I consider myself largely anti-corporation, anti-deregulation, etc. I think of myself as strongly progressive on economic (and social) issues. But I find that most liberals really don't think much about how corporations arrive at their decisions and how to use that same logic to more effectively combat policies that harm consumers.

In other words, I agree with Hatta that corporations and govt are in bed together, and that the system is largely corrupt. I just think that the way to change that is from the inside, not from an internet forum or a politically-cosncious shopping cart.

I can't disagree with you that boycotting alone is largely useless. The only thing it can do is create awareness among minds which could help gather political momentum to change a law. But in the meantime, not paying a company who you think is doing wrong is merely personal morality. And I think only MrPopo excused himself from that!

OWS...sigh, that was unethical journalism, which I think will be the death of this country.

[dsheinem]

Arbitration by a company that is chosen by Microsoft

it doesn't say that at all in the TOS

Why don't the courts agree with us in the US, whereas in every other industrialized country these clauses would be nullified as unconscionable? Because our government is not a government of the people, but one of corporations. This is kleptocracy in action.

Are you gonna bitch about it, or are you going to do something to change it? Despair is not a tenable or admirable political position, it is a refuge for the apathetic and the cowardly.

What other use case is there for such a clause?

As I said, to protect their bottom line. There is a difference.

[Hatta]

Incidentally, this is my same beef with the Occupy folks. I am extremely sympathetic to their claims, but as someone who studies and writes about activism professionally, it seems abundantly clear that their choice of tactics for creating change are (and will probably continue to be) horribly ineffective.

The Occupy movement has been the most successful populist movement in my lifetime. They haven't passed any legislation, but they've affected the national conversation in a way no one else has. People have been working within the system for years. How many times has Ralph Nader run for president? How many years has Bernie Sanders been a senator? They never made income inequality part of the zeitgeist the way OWS has. This is a very important accomplishment, even if it's just a first step.

[dsheinem]

The Occupy movement has been the most successful populist movement in my lifetime.

sad, but true.

They haven't passed any legislation, but they've affected the national conversation in a way no one else has.

I think time will tell on this. I think that you are right that they have been successful at consciousness-raising for certain people in the short-term, but I am not convinced that, in an era of the short attention span, consciousness-raising alone is a very useful thing.

This is a very important accomplishment, even if it's just a first step.

Again, too early to call. There's a good chance that OWS has done more to hurt the progressive agenda than they have to advance it, as they are largely relying on old social movement tactics and have done much to create further entrenchment on both "sides" of the political spectrum.

[isiolia]

While this is obviously not the ideal situation, I can see why they would do it - particularly, as was mentioned, due to the simple fact that they -can-. There's little reason a large corporation wouldn't want a loophole against class action if they can legally have it.

That said, I also look at it from the standpoint that MS (or whoever) wants to make money, and wants customer goodwill. If they had another issue like red-ringing, they'd know if they didn't resolve it that they'd lose customers.

Frankly, it's also centered on a product that, all things considered, is not likely to endanger people's lives. Is this kind of thing being allowed for drug companies as well? Car companies? Those are more the things I'd be worried about.

[MrPopo]

Until such time as they do, we can't pretend that companies are simply out to "defraud customers" as if that is some kind of motive.

What other use case is there for such a clause?

Being sued is expensive for a company, not to mention the potential harm it can do to your brand. If a consumer takes you to suit over an issue that arises due to improper or unsupported use of your product, even if you win you still have to deal with all the repercussions of being in court in the first place.

And to use an example, let's look at the PSN breach earlier this year. Sony had insufficient security, but they never promised you iron-clad security. The breach happens and they don't tell everything right away, though the service does go down immediately. This isn't them attempting to defraud their customers, this is spin control, to try and protect the brand. Class action lawsuits regarding the PSN breach would have done nothing to improve the product nor would they have improved the lives of those affected by it (ever seen the settlement amount from a class action on an individual basis?).

To contrast, let's compare to the 360 RROD issue. Let's talk about a situation where Microsoft was charging people for repairs to their RROD'd 360. If, at this point, they knew about the frequency of the problem and instituted this sort of clause, that would be an example of trying to defraud their customers, as they are intentionally selling a shoddy product.

Really, when you get down to it, the difference between corporate law here and corporate law in Europe is that in Europe everyone expects companies to only think about the bottom line and set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Here we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense.

[o.pwuaioc]

Really, when you get down to it, the difference between corporate law here and corporate law in Europe is that in Europe everyone expects companies to only think about the bottom line and set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Here we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense.

Citation needed.

[MrPopo]

Really, when you get down to it, the difference between corporate law here and corporate law in Europe is that in Europe everyone expects companies to only think about the bottom line and set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Here we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense.

Citation needed.

I'm not sure which part you're objecting to.

[o.pwuaioc]

Really, when you get down to it, the difference between corporate law here and corporate law in Europe is that in Europe everyone expects companies to only think about the bottom line and set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Here we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense.

Citation needed.

I'm not sure which part you're objecting to.

Both positive statements you've made.

[MrPopo]

Really, when you get down to it, the difference between corporate law here and corporate law in Europe is that in Europe everyone expects companies to only think about the bottom line and set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Here we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense.

Citation needed.

Both positive statements you've made.

Ok, so positive statement 1, they set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Do I really need to dig up the numerous posts from Niode to that effect?

Positive statement 2, we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense. Please reread the thread.