You can't sue Microsoft either now.

[alienjesus]

pubic good

lol.

[dsheinem]

oh, and dsheinem, just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

No argument from me on this....but what is "right" to you might not be "right" to the next person (see the debates over any controversial law). Right now the law suggests that this behavior is "right". It will be now be up to those who disagree (like you) to show why its not.

[dsheinem]

pubic good

lol.

[dsheinem]

If companies are legally able to ruin the environment if it makes them a profit, is it ok that they do that, too?

no, of course not. and we have laws that (are supposed to) prohibit and/or penalize them from doing so.

Obviously we agree that the fundamental error lies in the legality of such contracts, but that doesn't, in my mind, excuse amoral, nay, immoral corporate decisions.

It might not excuse those decisions in your eyes or mine, but it does excuse them under the law. I have a hard time trying to think about giant companies as rational and moral beings that can be guided by any code of ethics other than what is dictated by law....

[Hatta]

Additionally, they aren't really doing "harm" as users do have the right to opt out of these agreements, not sign them, etc. - it just requires effort and/or sacrifice.

The only reasons these clauses exist is to enable the companies to defraud their customers without giving them any recourse.

[Hatta]

Right now the law suggests that this behavior is "right".

The fact that it's lawful doesn't make this clause right. The fact that it's lawful shows how morally bankrupt our government is. This is not a government of the people, this is organized crime.

[o.pwuaioc]

If companies are legally able to ruin the environment if it makes them a profit, is it ok that they do that, too?

no, of course not. and we have laws that (are supposed to) prohibit and/or penalize them from doing so.

I specifically added in "legally". We have laws now, thankfully, but didn't not too long ago.

It might not excuse those decisions in your eyes or mine, but it does excuse them under the law. I have a hard time trying to think about giant companies as rational and moral beings that can be guided by any code of ethics other than what is dictated by law....

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.

[dsheinem]

Additionally, they aren't really doing "harm" as users do have the right to opt out of these agreements, not sign them, etc. - it just requires effort and/or sacrifice.

The only reasons these clauses exist is to enable the companies to defraud their customers without giving them any recourse.

Um, these clauses do give customers recourse - arbitration. in fact, it spells out their avenue for recourse in a way that the old TOS did not...an avenue that is usually more efficient and cheaper, I might add. I agree with you that the legal option should still be available, but the courts don't (yet) agree with us. 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. They are legally trying to protect their bottom line as best they can.

[dsheinem]

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-conscious shopping cart.

[Hatta]

Um, these clauses do give customers recourse - arbitration.

Arbitration by a company that is chosen by Microsoft, which therefore has an inherent conflict of interest. Metaphorical "venue shopping" is bad enough in the actual legal system, now you'll have Microsoft literally venue shopping with cash.

an avenue that is usually more efficient and cheaper

If that's the case, then customers shouldn't have to be forced into arbitration. But efficient and cheap doesn't make up for biased.

I agree with you that the legal option should still be available, but the courts don't (yet) agree with us.

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.

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?