Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandra
With all due respect, Traf, I object, too.
Policies where one part remains nearly rightless when the other part reserves to act at will are considered "contra bonos mores" here in Germany, and this might very well hit MA.
Think of it, this is marketed as "the most secure virtual reality" of all, and, in fact, MA reserves the rights to do whatever they want - is this really OK?
MA doesn't have any security for our "deposits" in their book-keeping (according to the quarterly records), and they claim in the support reply I quoted that any actions like this:
could result in things like:
It's fine that many of us have enough trust in MA to be sure that they wouldn't abuse such a possibility to block nearly all & every participants account at will (and I'm among these), but, as I have elaborated earlier, things might change. The sheer possibility of such actions is a pending danger, and I cannot understand that some ppl talking about "deposits" when they, in fact, give their money to MA in full knowledge they don't have any right at all to claim it back, should things go wrong.
With the current policy MA (or whoever get's in possession of it) is easily able to simply shutdown, keeping all the "deposits".
Right, you'd give your money to an investment fund that reserves the right to kick you at will, keeping your money, without any means of legal resistance? Well, I have one, we're investing in coastal immobile's in Austria, usually we pay about 56% interest - feel free to contact me about my banking details ;-))
Right, not yet. But it could happen any time. What do we know who buy's in IPO? And how much? And who would this be? And how much shares would come to market? And what would be the goal of a new majority owner? I could imagine it could be a nice deal to take over EU for cheap now, have it run some more year, then cash out. We don't know.
And since we "deposit" real money, I cannot help to think that we'd deserve clear rules and safe reserves, as we'd expect in any other kind of pecuniary investment, too. Is this this far-fetched?
Have fun! |
I'll try to make this brief: policy and law are (as I've said before) nearly unrelated. The legal claim you refer to as "contra bonos mores" probably has an equivalent in virtually all countries, and probably CAN be used as a successful challenge to the EULA. I'm not claiming otherwise, in fact, that's PART of what I'm saying. The EULA is an untested and one sided agreement. What I'm saying is that it's purpose is NOT to allow
MA to be one sided, but to ensure that they have all the latitude they need to comply with all the various issues, whether they are regulatory, statuatory, or whatever. As for the trust aspects, I also agree that it's about trust. You either trust that
MA is going to continue to provide the service (to the best degree they can), or you don't. No argument there.
Same goes for the clear rules, even. We *DO* deserve clear rules. I am GLAD that they are quite clear in regards to unsupported activities, like the rule that caused all this. They clearly state their position. Part of that position is that if you are involved in illegal activities, your account will be shut down. This
contributes to the security of the environment, and makes my ability to play more enjoyable. They don't recommend external transfers
because the security IS NOT THERE for it, so it's much more likely to be involved in something illegal.
Investment funds are a VERY good example.
EU has at least one investment fund already. It offers NO security for your investment. From a legal perspective, you have NO RIGHTS, and the PED/Items you give to them are considered fully transfered to the ava that runs it. I don't use it, BUT MANY DO. They apparently trust them, and I don't think they are stupid or foolish for doing it. In the real world, you can buy stocks that have no guarantee of any kind, same thing. You either trust the stock issuer or you don't. History and past performance, the reliability of the company, and so many other things may help, but in the end it's all a gamble on their ability and willingness to live up to the agreement made when you entered it.
MA's past performance and reliability may be questionable to some, but I think they've done well enough to stay in business as a viable "investment." If you don't agree, you should "sell out" of any investment you've made with them. The EULA itself has nothing to do with that, though. If you think it increases the risk of the deal, you are simply reading more into it than it deserves.
What I'm saying: your points are valid from a customer's rights perspective. The EULA just doesn't address customer rights, only responsibilities (and
MA's rights), to protect THEM. It's just up to
you to determine your rights under the law and protect yourself. Unfortunately,
MA isn't going to make it easy on you (but partially because it varies too much for them to cover in detail).