Fine Print Says Game Store Owns Your Soul 262
mr_sifter writes "UK games retailer GameStation revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of customers, thanks to a clause it secretly added to the online terms and conditions for its website. The 'Immortal Soul Clause' was added as part of an attempt to highlight how few customers read the terms and conditions of an online sale. GameStation claims that 88 percent of customers did not read the clause, which gives legal ownership of the customer's soul over to the UK-based games retailer. The remaining 12 percent of customers however did notice the clause and clicked the relevant opt-out box, netting themselves a £5 GBP gift voucher in the process."
Legally owns.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"unconscionable contract"
wouldn't this void all current contracts?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if the court accepts that such a thing actually exists and has a value to be considered.
That's going to be one interesting court case, especially when the time for evidence comes.
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:4, Funny)
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?...
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:4, Funny)
Two words: penis envy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I always thought Wookies had detachable penii, and called them Ewoks
Re: (Score:2)
You've been modded funny, but just think, what happens if a court makes a legal ruling that:
a: Souls do not exist and so a contract for one can't be arbitrated or enforced on that point.
b: Souls definitely do exist and are infinitely valuable because there is a God who redeems them via immortality.
b: Souls do exist, but they have only a finite value that can be controlled by the government because no religion that says they are immortal is true.
How many of the people who gave you your funny will be laughing
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, even Buddhists and Atheists sometimes kill over questions like this,
[citation needed]
The poor judge who has to deal with this will be walking on eggshells to avoid any ruling that even mentions whether souls exist or how much they are worth.
Yes, he will. Maybe, just maybe, someone in there will realize just how crazy it is to kill each other over a word. :-)
Once you have reached that stage, welcome to Atheism, it's a few more easy steps in the same direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe, someone in there will realize just how crazy it is to kill each other over a word.
I'm not sure that will make any real difference. There will always be too many people who won't realize it, or will refuse to. Those are the ones that people have to worry about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And since Jehovah Created you, you'd be a total dick to go to the Other Guy. Ingrate.
I love it when religion tries its hand at something so alien as this newfangled invention called "logic" (you know, created after the stone age, that's pretty new from a religious POV).
Now another internally consistent argument would say that since Jehovah created you including your soul, he has no use for souls, since he can apparently make them. Giving your soul to him would be like giving the shoemaker a pair of shoes for christmas.
Debunk me. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Debunk me. :-)
Well, if he created you and your soul ... and you have a choice to give your soul to one of two guys ... that would basically make your soul a ticket to get into one of two places ... which would make it worthless after its been taken at the door. So I guess that would give it some value if you valued the place you used your ticket to enter.
Now another internally consistent argument would say that since Jehovah created you including your soul, he has no use for souls, since he can apparently make them. Giving your soul to him would be like giving the shoemaker a pair of shoes for christmas.
FWIW, you can never have enough shoes, shoemaker or not.
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:5, Funny)
FWIW, you can never have enough shoes, shoemaker or not.
You're saying this god is a woman?
Re: (Score:2)
With pleasure.
1. The shoemaker analogy is flawed. The shoemaker is not receiving just any pair of shoes for Christmas, but a particular pair of shoes that he made - and to further correct the analogy, all shoes in this world are unique.
2. Another analogy might be that the shoemaker is lending different designs of shoes to various people for testing; when the person is done testing the shoe the shoemaker wants it back. If the shoe was flawed then the person testing the shoe will destroy it, and the remai
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shoemakers never have good shoes themselves, their best work and materials always goes to others.
Giving shoes to a shoemaker is a wonderful gift.
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that what's left of me after I'm dead will be invaluable parts for organ recipients and/or medical schools.
All that's left of me shall be just enough to fertilize an apple tree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is left of you after your body is dead is your soul.
Actually, what's left of your body is some decomposing biomass. Whether or not there is anything in addition to the body is very much up for debate, and I happen to not accept the answer "we know because this dusty old tome from a time when the entire human knowledge about medicine and psychology could fit on a single sheet of paper tells us so".
If you created an animated "Intelligent" life form and set it free to roam the world, would you want it to come back or go live with your worst enemy?
I'd certainly enjoy the occasional visit, but if I set it free to roam the world then I'd want it to, you know, roam the world.
Now if I built in a death timer so th
Re: (Score:2)
I got given a packet of bulbs for christmas. The gift-giver later received a beautiful flower. It was only through my nurturing that it was either.
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are claiming is merely a presumption, and one of many possible scenarios
Exactly my point. I was showing the GP that his story is just one of many, by making up my own. Since we're talking about the presumed motivations of hypothetical beings, it is a little difficult to ascertain the truth, or even just a probability.
but religion as a fundamental belief structure has yet to be proven one way or another,
Proven as what? As a belief structure? I think we're done with that. As "true" or "false"? That's trivial: We have about a dozen large religions, all mutually exclusive, all claiming that they and only they are in posession of the truth. By their own internal logic, at most one of them can be. If elven of them are wrong, what are the chances that the 12th is right?
Socrates when he said "all that I know is that I know nothing." Understanding that there are gaps in human knowledge
Socrates was over two millenia ago, we have made a little bit of progress since then. Most importantly, we have realized that there is a difference between not knowing everything, and knowing nothing at all. And we have dug a lot deeper into the nature of truth since Socrates and Plato and especially Aristotle. Granted, it's taken us almost 2000 years, but we finally arrived at non-Aristotelian logic, for example. We realize that whatever "truth" ultimately may be, even if we can not claim to know anything absolutely really for certain, some knowledge, such as physics or medicine, has obvious, visible, reliable and testable practical applications. And some knowledge, such as music, or ethics, has somewhat fuzzy, and not-quite-obvious, but still overal positive practical effects. And some knowledge, such as Voodoo, and Kabballa, and religion, simply doesn't.
Nevertheless, we do apparently have a built-in desire for some kind of spirituality, be it religion or some replacement. There is a lot of very interesting research still to be done on the human mind. It just happens that the nonsense some barely literate desert dwellers wrote down twenty centuries ago isn't among it. It's a historical curiosity, like ancient greek physics.
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion is the reason we have universities and higher education today. You personally may choose to ignore the moral ideals of many religions, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Well, this is /. and I'm not really writing a book, so some parts of my opinion are necessarily missing. I actually do believe that religion once served a useful role for the development of mankind. I disagree about the education part, especially given that one religion (Christianity) was a major factor in destroying what higher education the ancient world already had in place, but that's a minor point.
The major point is that this time is long past, and these days (and for hundreds of years now), religion has been more of a burden than a help. It's time to get rid of it.
He does have "use" of it, in the sense that it is a gift, and should not be wasted to damage yourself or others.
If it is a gift, then it comes with no strings attached and I can do with it as I see fit. If there are strings attached, it isn't a gift, but something else, maybe a lease. Please make up your mind if you want to discuss this point.
I studied to be a priest for 2 years, and we were required to take courses in logic. I would imagine most have not.
Your attitude toward religion and logic are not logical.
*nod*
The amount of effort that the organized religions put into their foot soldiers is frightening. I know what priests learn during training. They are much better trained for speaking than many actual professions that require speaking skills.For example, teachers don't get nearly as much voice training, even though they speak all day, every day.
My attitude toward religion isn't logical, but I can create an unbroken logical chain towards it, and reason and intuition have mutually reinforced each other over several years before I came to where I am today. I'm not saying "religion is evil" because I feel like doing so anymore than a physicist says "gravity exists" because he feels its pull - he certainly has that feeling, but it is only a tiny part of what actually constitutes his knowledge about gravity. So if you say that there is no physical reason to even research gravity, then you are certainly right. But that doesn't put gravity itself beyond reason.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, not true. My understanding of Christianity is that your soul belongs to you.
Cool, that means I can downloaded another soul through a torrent.
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot about the lawyers...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legally owns.... (Score:5, Insightful)
for sufficient definitions of "unconscionable contract".
Or for sufficient definitions of 'joke.'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Meh, if GameStation wants to fight the devil over it when I get sent down to the cellar, I'm not seeing too many downsides. Unless GameStation is run by Cthulhu, in which case it's the greater evil.
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake both you and the article's author make is in assuming that we didn't willingly forfeit our souls.
In fact, I feel much better now, knowing that nothing I do will affect the fate of my soul. At least I did, until they told me they weren't going to exercise their option. Apparently I have a lot of candy to return to some very upset babies now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
There's nothing unconscionable about this contract. Unconscionable does not mean the user is a dumbass who didn't read the contract. Unconscionable requires uneven bargaining positions; which is impossible in a sale of luxury goods.
No I read it... (Score:3, Funny)
My soul has been pissing me off.
I mean for real, stop whining - I know - I'm slowly killing you with violent video games - give it a rest already.
Yawn (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/2315211 [slashdot.org]
Soul back please (Score:2, Funny)
OSR (Obligatory Simpson's Reference) (Score:4, Funny)
Make it readable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want me to read it, make it readable.
1. NO legalese
2. One page maximum length
Putting a 30 page wall of text full of legalese and word games does NOT constitute a useful document. I'm paying for a product, not to play lawyer.
Re:Make it readable (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing about legal documents: It doesn't matter if you read them, understand them, whatever. Only that you sign them.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never signed an EULA, have you?
BY REPLYING TO THIS POST YOU AGREE TO PAY ME THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED US DOLLARS.
Somehow I think I'll have a hard time suing you when you respond and don't pay me.....
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that they don't -want- people able to understand them. I'm sorry that I overestimated your intelligence and didn't explicitly spell that out.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that they don't -want- people able to understand them
Whose fault is that? The company or those that keep doing business with it in spite of the legalese?
I'm sorry that I overestimated your intelligence
Wow, how witty. Did you have to think real hard to come up with that and the AC sock puppet reply?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And HIS point was that unless he signs it, it's just a bunch of meaningless babble and should be treated as such. Looks like this thread is 0 for 2!
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if you read them, understand them, whatever. Only that you sign them.
On the contrary, there must be "meeting of the minds"—agreement by both parties regarding the terms of the contract—before a contract is considered valid or enforceable. However, it is typical for the signature line on a contract to explicitly state that you have read it and understand the terms. Why should anyone doubt your own word on the matter? Aside from cases of coercion or misrepresentation by the other party, your statement that you read and understood the contract is rightfully the fina
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very good idea for you to act as if this is the case when considering whether or not to sign something, but its not actually true in many cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Sign, accept, whatever. The doc in the article was the usual, "Using this means you accept these terms" kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The kind of thing that's never been tested in court
Except it has been tested in court. Many times.
Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology - EULA Invalid
Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. - EULA Invalid
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg - EULA valid
Microsoft v. Harmony Computers - EULA valid
Novell v. Network Trade Center - EULA valid
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These are all US court cases, and courts in the US are a lot less forgiving than the European when you sign an unreasonable contract.
In Norway for instance, it is generally assumed by lawyers (but untested) that EULAs can be ignored. Only proper SLAs and such constitute binding contracts.
So it kind of depends on which contry's laws you try it under.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The store in TFA (TFS, even) is a UK store, you dolt.
The UK is in the EU.
UK and EU law is what matters here, not US law.
Country of origin for the reader is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
By reading this statement you agree to all terms and conditions.
You will pay me $1,000,000 CAD
Doesn't seem too fair, but you read it. $1,000,000 CAD please
Re: (Score:2)
In exchange for not reading your post, you agreed to pay me $1,000,000 US. When may I expect your payment?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think every software review needs to include reading and understanding the EULA in the "time to install" and "time to update" metric.
When the review hits the stands that "Windows 7 takes a week and $200 in lawyers fees to install" maybe something will change?
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth makes you think they want you to read it. They would prefer you didn't and just said you did--which you do. Hey, it works!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't having one be a detriment to your progress?
Good Riddance (Score:5, Funny)
No soul to sell. (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that I do not have a "Soul" I fail to see the threat.
Would you like my pet Unicorn with that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? :) Look around you sometimes. You seriously missed all the churches/etc.? I can see two of them (plus some monument for worshipping) only through my window. Built by funds funneled from poor people led to believe in a fantasy (sadly, in my place there still isn't much use for them; they aren't converted into buildings of public utility, as is more or less the norm in two countries I h
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the bumper stickers, license plates (CU N HVN), "Pledge of Allegiance", the US Dollar, billboards, "Bless you" when someone sneezes (maybe that's reaching)...
Already Gone (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Suckers! (Score:2)
The company store already own's my soul!
So, even by accepting your terms, YOU STILL F*CKING LOSE! /cackle
"aint no soul" blah blah (Score:2, Interesting)
Er no (Score:2)
thanks to a clause it secretly added to the online terms and conditions for its website.
Er no, no it doesn't, thanks to a clause I secretly added to our agreement. They can come to my house and read it if they want.
After all, if the law allows a party to state implicit agreement to a contract and/or modify said contract - the law applies to EVERYONE, including the other party of the contract.
Some folks will be REALLY offended (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree, for the most part this might draw some notice and respect form the gaming community, but I would be surprised if this did not make a few religious groups very upset.
Re:Some folks will be REALLY offended (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. We're not here to amuse the remaining dumbos who have remained in the mental iron age.
Re: (Score:2)
Your religion, your problem.
People shouldn't expect the rest of the world to make life safe for their little hallucinations.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH remember that god(s) tend to act in quite irrational ways in most stories; holding a contract you were unaware of as valid would be a relativelly mild form of batshit crazy, in comparison.
12% (Score:2)
I am surprised it was that high, I have never ready any of the terms and conditions I have ever agreed to.
Not "idle" (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an important problem. And this was a really great way to highlight it. Huge props for Gamestop for doing this, instead of profiting from it.
The real problem though, is not people not reading it. The problem is, that in practice it’s impossible to read all the terms of all the contracts.
First they are deliberately written in undecipherable legal code. Something that should be illegal, but isn’t because it’s so hard to define.
Then it’s way too much. You would have to read a multi-page small-font document, every time you pull out your wallet. (Yes, the terms can change in the two days between you going to the same shop to buy your food.)
And finally, the whole thing is also deliberately made hard to access. How often did you go into a building with house rules, or signed a contract that mentioned them or some other external document, but they never handed them to you, and even acted annoyed and insulted, when you pointed it out, and demanded the document?
It is 100% crystal clear that pretty much all companies do not want you to read any of it, for the very purpose of them biting you in the ass as soon as you trip over the tiniest irregularity. Or even without doing anything.
Most contracts basically go like this:
[big font] WE MAKE YOUR DREAM COME TRUE FOR FREE [/big font]
[tiny font] There is some hidden document in the lower drawer in the basement of a building on the other side of the world, that is part of what you sign [tiny font]
[hidden document] We give you NOTHING, but take from you EVERYTHING! [hidden document]
And that is no different than mob tactics. In fact I say it out loud, and call every major corporation on this world a criminal mob with the sole purpose of making as much money as possible, even when it means walking over more dead bodies than the Nazis. ...hell, Microsoft is a silly small fish in that area, when compared to those. But still way above the line of acceptable moral behavior.
Examples: Monsanto, Haliburton, Eli Lily, Shell, Elsevier.
They all have private armies. They all have revolving doors with every big government. They all make huge profits with lies, death and deception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're brave. "I'm a Lawyer, but I don't read Terms of Use or EULAs", why are these things valid if everyone, including the people that can actually read and understand them, ignore them.
I'm a victim of the Sony PS3/Linux issue. I bought my PS3 to use Linux and play games. Now Sony is hiding behind the EULA saying they have a right to take away a feature people bought the original system for. I never agreed to let them remove anything, customer service keeps pointing me to the Maintenance and upgrade sectio
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine and dandy if and only if they contain perfectly ordinary terms and conditions. If there is anything unusual (such as we can change the agreement unilaterally at any time, you might THINK you bought something, but you didn't, etc) then it should hold no weight at all since (by your own admission) even lawyers don't read them.
If they hold no weight beyond conventional and well understood terms, they should just be implied and we can save some trees.
In this particular case, it is obviously a joke,
NOT IDLE !! (Score:3, Insightful)
this is not idle. this is a very serious and important issue. it proves how useless and detrimental current legal contract system is. it is infeasible for any user/customer to sit and read 4-5 pages of text and then to weight it and then to agree. EVEN if you did that, chances are high that you would still fail to assess it properly, because most require extensive local legal knowledge. The article shouldnt have been in idle. its some important issue that affects everyone and every business.
Joke's on Them (Score:2)
Anyone offended? (Score:2)
I suggest you sue and claim the full value of your soul. Current consensus is that's about £5
So say souls are real (Score:2)
And there is no such thing as an "unconscionable contract" when it comes to souls?
In fables, a lot of soul acquisition turns on trickery.
This would be a pretty major supernatural event.
The store owner could die and find he has major stroke in the afterworld.
I'm trading mine for Alf pogs (Score:2)
Contract law needs to be redone (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Be no more than 800 words (2 pages or so)
2. Contain no latin or other legal terms that the average High School Graduate does not understand.
If the contract is longer or uses other words, than non-lawyers can NOT be expected to understand them anymore than I could be expected to understand a page in French.
I'm Really surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm Really surprised... (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks different to me ;-) (Score:2)
"was added as part of an attempt to highlight how few customers read the terms and conditions of an online sale."
Interesting. To me it looks like an example of how retailers drown customers in excessive terms and conditions, leaving the retailer free to make unreasonable demands in bad faith if they so choose. I realise that GameStation were illustrating (in a humourous way, it was funny and good-natured) something that's worth knowing - that you are agreeing to whatever that says (in principle, subject t
Fine print (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, I don't know why having "fine print" in contracts is even legal. For any "reasonable person" it's obvious that having fine print is an attempt of one party to have the other not to read the print, which is a fraud at best. Seriously, what a honest person would need a fine print for? Conservation of paper?
Don't read EULAs (Score:2)
I purposely never read EULAs. I know this isn't a valid legal theory, but morally I feel a contract is only valid when there is a meeting of the minds (this is "supposed to be" the way contract law works, if I understand correctly). Thus, if I don't read it, it is not possible for me to meet my mind with theirs. If I read a EULA, I might feel a moral compunction to abide by it; but if I skip right to the software, then my actions need only be directed by my pre-existing moral compass.
Yet, because I am inter
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can help you keep idle off the front page, but it's going to cost you something... precious: your Slashdot user ID. Mwahahahaha!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe to feel younger again?
Re: (Score:2)
You sound young
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are slumming?
Re: (Score:2)
Totally offtopic, but why would a user with a four-digit id want the user id from a five-digit user?
The request for the Slashdot User ID is analogous to the request for a person's soul in the GameStation 'terms of service' agreement. I'd use a car analogy but cars don't have souls.
Back! Back, you 4-digiter! (Score:4, Funny)
Return to the foul, eldtritch depths from whence you came, Beast from Beyond! The stars are not yet aligned and your time has not yet come! Back! Back I say! No Slashdot User IDs for you!
Re:Back! Back, you 4-digiter! (Score:5, Funny)
AAAHhhhhhhhaaargh! Curse ye, I am foiled! I shall return to The Basement until my powers grow. You've not heard the last of me! *POOF* Cough, cough damn it, the package said these smoke bombs were non toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
No these terms of sales just EULAs are usually not valid, neither in form nor in content.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I agree to sell my soul, am I then liable to God for conversion?
Re: (Score:2)
There has been more silly things defended in a court of law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA mentions that this was done on April 1st.
I don't usually consider April fools jokes publicity stunts, but I suppose I can see how they could be taken that way.
Re: (Score:2)
At least with a website you don't lose anything by rejecting. With purchased software you are compelled to agree because you'v
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? Are you going to enforce the contract against he who shall not be named?
BTW, I love your username and the fact that you wound up with a prime number for a UID.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Canada you can't be held to a contract unless your of legal age. Since the majority of the target audience of console games is under 20 most of the people agreeing to the EULAs can't be held accountable, at least in Canada.
Hopefully as a result of that the Sony EULA, you agree to by just taking your PS3 out of the box and starting it up, will be tried by a court. Maybe there's a couple of judges out that will agree EULAs are unreasonable for people to be able to read and just clicking an OK button isn't
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada you can't be held to a contract unless your of legal age. Since the majority of the target audience of console games is under 20 most of the people agreeing to the EULAs can't be held accountable, at least in Canada.
Small quibble, but the age of majority (in terms of contracts, anyway) in Canada is 18.
Doesn't detract from the rest of your thoughtful point though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew gamers even had souls?
When will somebody apply Rule 35 to this?\