How Universal treats you, its customers

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocRailgun:
Life imitates art, huh? Mal and company (in Firefly) don't want to live within the sytem, so they're dirt-poor and living from job to job. That's their choice. They walked away. The OP could have done the same. Sure, he wouldn't have seen the movie or seen Joss... but that would have been his choice.

---

Sorry. I just dont buy into it. Are you suggesting that if you accept any aspect of civilisation (and theres much thats good)...you should (or have..by extension) agreed to all of it...to take whatever crap some rich corporation, government...or sick bastard with money and power dishes out...without thought or complaint?

No. That aint right,

Cant stop the signal....


----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I suggest that's a poor comparison, by choice of scale. Abstaining from a single event to avoid buying into an implicit agreement is a far cry from eschewing all of civilization because you don't buy into how one small part of that civilization is being run. If an unscrupulous baron of a small community within a civilization assesses an implicit agreement on all who enter his area of control, you can vote with your feet without giving up your access to the rest of that civilization.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well...lets look at it on this scale then. Via my post, above...you have waved all legal and financial rights to me...

and have obviously chosen, by continuing correspondance on this thread that you have not voted with your feet to avoid waving said rights.

Now...I would never seriously expect anyone to avoid the forum and the fun to be had on the forum in order to have to maintain their legal rights.

It would be silly. None of you would accept it from me...why accept it from universal...or anyone else?

Personally...if universal had said that I was to sign away my first born to see the movie...after turning up and buying a ticket..I wouldnt have walked away. Call me a radical...but personally I would have watched the movie (cause I enjoy the damn thing and took a trip to sydney to see it) and then have not complied with the silly agreement and complained about it to all that would listen...cause it was a silly requirement deserving that level of scorn and lack of compliance....and is worthy of complaint

Obviously my example..was extreem...but in response to another post that took a rather black and white approach...with those 2 colours...the shading really doesnt matter...nor does the scale.

Although if one were to object on a basis of scale...your petty baron controlling one spot of land...unlike a corporation...has limited reach. Universals agreement...while it almost certainly was not going to be used abusively, nevertheless signs away more rights than were necessary....and in the original posted example....provided insufficient notice to people....and they cant outrun it cept by moving to a country with substantially different corporate laws...

The problem isnt as simple as voting with ones feet...nice and blackNwhite...people will have watched that and still have no idea that they have, supposedly, signed away there credit cards (or whatever personal and legal rights were waved by universal). They were never given the choice to vote with their feet. And it is a fair call to suggest that something about that has a bit of an odour to it. Yes, he could have voted with his feet....but that dont fix the prob or address the real issue.

The vote with your feet argument is a classic one used to supress freedom of speech and people who are actively attempting to point out ligitimate problems....& I will never tend to agree with it.

It IS the same argument used on all scales. Well if you are going to complain about America...go somewhere else!....so much for democracy and freedom of speech....dont try to improve stuff...if you dont like the way it is go somewhere else!

Spose all thos ppl in New Orleans should have voted with their feet also? Oh no, wait...some of em couldnt! Maybe they should just shuddup or drown!

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

toDeath,

I think that most people on this board are not disputing the aggrieved party's rights to complain.

Rather, it is the method and execution of his opposition that is reviled.

I will again reiterate the supreme ironies at the core of this issue:

An opponent of implied consent went on to imply the consent of others to have his representation.

An opponent of rudeness was, himself, rude.

A person who wasn't seeking renumeration asked for quite a bit of it.

The aggrieved has no legs in my view. Had he handled things better, at any stage, he would have far greater support.

As it lies now, He had a good argument, then buggered it all to pieces.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

In some areas I suspect that I agree with your main premise that Universal handled things badly. I just have some difficulty getting beyond the expressions being used. Attempts, for example, to tie in a cheezily-delivered (and worded) blanket release to civil rights, political dissent in America and the plight of people from New Orleans simply make no sense to me.

As for your posted "release" above, it meant nothing. You don't provide this forum, nor any of its services, nor is there a glimmer of expectation by anyone visiting it that you could ever have such power. Your attaching implicit conditions to people reading posts here, even one you authored, has no real substance, and illustrates nothing that I can see.

On the other hand, Universal has legal rights to the content they were presenting in a limited-access venue, and they held legal rights to control that access. They were completely in their rights to require some manner of consent in order to view the material; they just obtained that consent in a manner I find high-handed and of questionable straightforwardness.

Again, the only real recourse to people not wanting to grant that consent was/is to vote with their feet and not access the material. Pointing out that such recourse might not be appropriate in other contexts doesn't apply in this case.

Edited because some of the wording in my original post was too argumentative in my opinion.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I have mostly been targeting my arguments at the...well..at the argument...not at the person.

That would be rude.

However, many respondants have not been doing so. Personally, i think you should all take a deep breath and read the original post again.

It may not nail the issues perfectly, but I can see nowhere in that post:

1) The author assumeing consent for others to be represented by him, rather he raised an issue he felt strongly about that happens to affect others (as do most issues selfless people feel strongly about). In so doing he in no way waved the legal (or moral!!!) rights of any individual. Really...no comparison to the universal disclaimer.

2)The author being in any way rude to anyone...he made a legit point, gave us a good and thorough example of the issue and the legal disclaimer in question.

Later...AFTER being attacked some, he had some follow up posts that may have been a tad hasty.But certainly at at least one stage...he made a good and valid point.

With all respect, Anthony. i think people on this thread should be attacking the argument...because that is the issue at hand...rather than the author. If he had a good argument and buggered it...you could show your great understanding by clarifying it for people...rather than by implying that he is a rude &/or greedy hypocrite.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spinland:
tie in a cheezily-delivered (and worded) blanket release to civil rights, political dissent in America and the plight of people from New Orleans simply make no sense to me.

As for your posted "release" above, it meant nothing. You don't provide this forum, nor any of its services, nor is there a glimmer of expectation by anyone visiting it that you could ever have such power. Your attaching implicit conditions to people reading posts here, even one you authored, has no real substance, and illustrates nothing that I can see.

On the other hand, Universal has legal rights to the content they were presenting in a limited-access venue, and they held legal rights to control that access. They were completely in their rights to require some manner of consent in order to view the material; they just obtained that consent in a manner I find high-handed and of questionable straightforwardness.

Again, the only real recourse to people not wanting to grant that consent was/is to vote with their feet and not access the material. Pointing out that such recourse might not be appropriate in other contexts doesn't apply in this case.

Edited because some of the wording in my original post was too argumentative in my opinion.

---

I see the issue at hand to be one of civil rights..albiet a rather unimportant example (the Universal disclaimer stripped people of rights without sufficient warning). But yes, I agree with you that it is a rather minor incident of high handed but essentially harmless legalise....my more cheesy examples were merely combating a conservative argument I rather dislike...vote with your feet is a roundabout way of telling someone to not have an opinion and I rather object to it on a forum that is, I would have thought, the entire point...to have opinions. My posted release was merely a parody of the universal one to illustrate a point...that point not being the power I have over the forum (for i have no authority here or anywhere else)....but rather how innapropriate it is to assume people have agreed to a contract b4 having had any real chance to see its content. Mostly, I agree with your last post.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Fair enough. Methinks this medium dilutes a lot of meaning and context, and sometimes that dilution extends into what I call "violent agreement."

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME