Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussi
I object.
The moment i (or some other participant) suffer from bug (which are plenty in existence, as we hopefully all can agree on) and MA hides behind EULA ('we can't compensate') and they don't fix the bug instantly then there is definitively something wrong.
No matter how big the monetary impact on the customer.
Tussi |
Your objection is irrelevant. The EULA is an agreement that YOU agreed to that says that such occurrences are to be allowed for. They don't promise any particular service periods, and don't *charge* for the service itself, so any outages do not impart a financial obligation.
Similar example: your cell phone -- If you suffer a cell phone interruption that causes you financial, medical, or other problems... you have contractually agreed not to pursue the phone company as liable for the costs. The limits to which you are entitled are for service outages. Since
EU has not guaranteed any particular service times, they owe you nothing if they interrupt service, regardless of the reason. However, the law may or may not hold that stipulation up based on circumstance. Either way though, their terms of service SAY they are not responsible.
Better examples probably exist, since the cell phone actually DOES contain a service period and therefor contains a financial liability for outages. Also, to be a good example it would include a violation of usage terms on your part. Such violations would be terminated without prior notice, and without a challenge for virtually ALL service contracts as a standard "CYA". Otherwise, they could be considered complacent in criminal activities.
It's not like they *want* to disable accounts for no particular reason. It's more like they have a lawyer advising them (on occasion) that if they don't disable an account, they would incur some degree of culpability for complacence in any illegal actions. The policy just can't pick and choose the conditions under which it's enforced.
They are NOT hiding behind the EULA any more than any other service company out there.
As for bugs, check out your Windows EULA regarding bugs and liability. To expect people to "fix it instantly" is not realistic by any stretch. In fact, they have no obligation to fix any bug at all. The only *reason* they fix them is to ensure that people are happy enough to use it. If the bug doesn't interfere with their profits, they have no reason to spend development time or money on it!
Sad? sort of, but only because that's what being a service oriented company means today.
All in all, they do a GREAT job of taking care of us when you factor in both sides of the equation. They are slow to enforce the EULA when it's "questionable", and quick when it's clear-cut. That's just the way it should be, IMHO.
Bottom line, if your deal is on the up and up, there is only ONE reason to feel threatened: if the other person in your deal cannot be trusted. They can screw it up for you by casting suspicion on the deal, effectively scamming you in the process. If both sides are happy,
MA won't say a thing, I'm (virtually) 100% confident of that. The EULA is there to protect
MA, and they would support the transaction if they could, but we have too many lawyers in this world for that to be a clear cut case.