Company Bricks User's Software After He Posts A Negative Review

There's nothing wrong with this. He didn't like the software so they revoked his license.

>>58308002
The least they could've done was refund him.

>>58308002
>we don't like your negative review of our insurance company so we disabled your pacemaker remotely
>we don't like your negative review of our latest car so we disabled your ABS, airbag sensors and GPS remotely
>we don't like your negative review of our internet offer so we cut off your access
>we don't like your negative review of our secure door looks so we'll unlock them remotely
>there's nothing wrong with this

Okay.

File: PaeI15v.jpg (487KB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 3504x2336px

Another one for the list.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/

>>58308093

There's no reason for a business to continue providing you service if you don't like the service.

>>58308151
Yes there is. The service was paid for.

>>58308151
>service
Yeah that's kinda the issue: nothing is owned anymore, everything is a service, nothing can be assumed, anything can change at any moment.

>>58308124
I'd just like to interject for a moment. You appear to be using an element from this image in your post: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_by_Anders_Brenna_01.jpg
You may have done this accidentally, but you've violated the terms of its copyright license. This is a serious offense and I hope you take it as seriously as it deserves.
Not to say that you're not allowed to create derived works from this image, you are, but this picture is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Norway license. Therefor, you are free:

to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work;
to remix - to adapt the work;

Under the following condition:

attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

In this case, the attribution requirement is resolved simply by including the following in your post:

Anders Brenna [CC BY 3.0 no (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/no/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Now that you have read this, I hope you have a better understanding of your rights and obligations when remixing and sharing this work. They will let you edit, now be nice and credit~

>>58308151
There's no reason for them to revoke it if you don't like it either. It is purely punitive or, in this case, used as an excuse to make bad press go away.

This is an untenable position. If you continue to defend it, I'm not going to reply, because you're either trolling or too entrenched in whatever ridiculous and uncompromising worldview leads you to think that any company is within its rights to revoke services without warning.

In most states, landlords must give their tenants 24-72 hrs notice before arriving for an inspection - they can't just barge the fuck in because the Holy Bible of American capitalism says they're entitled to - but somehow you seem to think there's precedent for what this company is doing. Fuck off.

>>58308179
>I'd just like to interject for a moment.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. You appear to be using an internet meme.
You may have done this accidentally, but you've violated the terms of its copyright license. This is a serious offense and I hope you take it as seriously as it deserves.
Not to say that you're not allowed to create derived works from this image, you are, but this picture is released under the 4chan licence. Therefore, you are free:

to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work;
to remix - to adapt the work;

Under the following condition:

reddit - You have to go back.

Now that you have read this, I hope you have a better understanding of your rights and obligations when remixing and sharing this work. They will let you edit, now be nice and reddit~

>>58308179
Jesus christ

At least he should have his money back. What kind of bullshit is this?

>>58308276
It is the "we can write anything we want in the EULA" kind of bullshit.

>>58308151
Except you pay for a service. Like a good once you pay for it its yours

>>58308245
>the phrase "I'd just like to interject for a moment" is copyrighted
sure anon-kun

>>58308167

And you received service until you badmouth their business and damage their brand. You aren't entitled to a refund (or anything for that matter).

>>58308240
>In most states, landlords must give their tenants 24-72 hrs notice before arriving for an inspection - they can't just barge the fuck in because the Holy Bible of American capitalism says they're entitled to - but somehow you seem to think there's precedent for what this company is doing. Fuck off.

Renting property is completely different from having a license that allows to utilize a business' services. Also, those are nanny state tier regulations that shouldn't exist, just don't be a nigger and pay your rent on time.

File: GNU_and_Stallman_2012.jpg (903KB, 2348x1736px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 2348x1736px

Is there a FOSS alternative to this software for anyone interested in HAM radio?

>>58308304
>Like a good once you pay for it its yours

That has never been true, especially for software. You're purchasing a license that can be revoked at any time, it's perfectly reason to revoke the license of someone who went out of their way to tarnish your brand and drive away other potential customers.

>>58308332
(You)

>>58308332
>you don't get to use it anymore because you said it had problems

It's ok though, hopefully this article will make it clear that buying products from these worthless filthy fucking subhumans is wrong and shouldn't be done.

>>58308365
>you don't get to use it anymore because you said it had problems

Strawman. This isn't what happened. This person went out of their way to disparage the developers and brand of the company that made this software. If they had first tried to approach the developers with feedback/bug reports then I'm sure they would have been receptive.

>>58308396
>calling out the company for its seeming unwillingness to fix the underlying issue.
This strongly hints that he has approached them.

>>58308430
Or the blogger just wrote a review on their website or on his blog

>>58308396
A negative review isn't "disparaging the developers" or the software.

>>58308151
>service
It is normally the one paying for a service to fire the one providing the service, but recently it became the other way round because muh EULA

>>58308332
There are consumer protection laws for a reason

>>58308430

Nope, the bad '''review''' was published months before he approached the developers with feedback.

Who fucking cares.

File: EP.jpg (2MB, 2766x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2766x2400px

>>58308352
Bruce Perens would know. He's into that.

>>58308447

AKA useless government meddling.

>>58308151
You're a dumbass and nice bait

>HAM

literal autism in this day in age

>>58308179
I love you /g/

I don't get it. If he didn't like the product and service why did he continue to use it after harming their brand instead of purchasing a competing solution, using a FOSS alternative or making his own?

>>58308468
the customers deserve to be protected from companies that abuse customers via false advertisement erroneous EULA's and shitty business practises

>>58308285
The problem with the EILA is it is not normally visible until after you pay and the contract is in force. This makes it almost totally irrelevant and legally very easy to challenge. It would be like walking into Starcucks, ordering a coffee, paying for it and on the way out the door the manager handing you saying, that if you drink the coffee you are legally obliged to give him a blowjob. It is too late to add T&Cs.

>>58308509
because he paid for a license, the product didn't work, he pointed out that it didn't work and instead of having good customer service, refunding him they stole his money out from under him because of their incompetence

>>58308511
>abuse customers via false advertisement erroneous EULA's and shitty business practises

Good thing that isn't happening then?

Businesses are free to cut ties with anyone they want to, especially people who attack their business. If this was my company I'd revoke your license on the spot and then bill you for wasting my time if you made a hitpiece about my company.

>>58308396
That entirly hinges upon if hs review was accurate, Did the software have the problems he listed?

>>58308534
>Good thing that isn't happening then?
It happens all the time

without the EU law guaranteeing customers of the EU refunds on software like a service. Providers like Valve's Steam service wouldn't offer refunds on games that are broken or mislead by publishers

It happens still in america because americans have no consumer rights protecting them like the EU or AU do.

>>58308534
"Cutting ties" only works if they refunded his money, even partially.

>>58308534
>fair use and criticism is "attack on businesses"

>bill you for wasting time
you can't lawfully bill me against my will for services not rendered

>>58308002
>hurrrrrrr companies can do anything
KYS

>>58308579
>lawfully
Darn that law, always getting in the way.

>>58308553
The software he bought didn't work with windows 10. So he wrote a negative review for the company not fixing the issue. Instead of refunding him like most companies would for a product that didn't work as advertised, they revoked his license instead

>>58308565
>without the EU law guaranteeing customers of the EU refunds on software like a service. Providers like Valve's Steam service wouldn't offer refunds on games that are broken or mislead by publishers

Don't buy from game developers with a bad track record then. The government should be the one you cry to if you have buyers remorse.

>>58308179
dying

>>58308594
>you should have known the game company was colluding with advertisers to sell you a bad product

There is no way of knowing because there is no transparency. Your entire argument relies on hindsight that hinges on the customer knowing beforehand that they were gonna get scammed.

>>58308593
Then his review was fair comment n9t a customer going "out of their way to disparage the developers and brand of the company that made this software" seems clear cut that he is in the right.

>>58308594
>bad track records
You mean from people posting negative reviews? B-but those are harmful!

>>58308609

Just because you don't like the product does not make it a bad one nor a 'scam'. You are not entitled to a refund.

This is why everyone should pirate rather than submit, bend and bow and take cock up the ass by playing yourself by being a moral faggot by blindly giving your wallet, payment information, personal information and your money to proprietary shitters that'll cuck you like this. Unless the proprietary/commercial/third party software dev/s are Godsend/s and or bro/s and feel they earn and deserve money and treat their customers and users properly/rightly/fairly then sure hand them your money for their software.

>>58308623
>just because the developers of watch dogs created fake screen shots of a game to mislead you into buying a game that looked significantly worse upon release doesn't mean they scammed you
Yea actually they did.

>you're not entitled to a refund
Under EU law I am. Get fucked you ancap

>>58308653
>EU
sucks that americans don't get these protections

Aussies get 30 days to return it

>>58308623
How about the ones that are literally scams? There was one that advertised itself as having 8 "really hard" levels when it only had one literally impossible level. Are people entitled to refunds there?

>>58308674
Their loss.

>>58308653

>hurr i couldn't tell the difference between some shitty cinematic trailer and actual gameplay, therefore i was (((scammed)))

did you also vote for hillary?

>>58308684
And what about the school that was paid to teach you? Are those of us who are taxpayers entitled to a refund as that was clearly a scam.

>>58308700
>its your fault
keep blaming the people for the actions of the business

You're fucking retarded

>Do you also vote for hillary
I'm not an american citizen

>>58308151
>there's no reason for a business not to act like petulant children

>>58307991
Service companies do this all the time. Amazon will blacklist you for returning too many things. That includes when the sellers are trying to scam you or sell you shit.

>>58308700
>NO, customer rights are a fraud, a scam the people don't need protections. Biznis din du nuffin you should have magically telepathically known you were gonna get scammed, YOUR FAULT

>>58307991

oh look, another kike company acting like kikes

>>58308353

back to your containment board dumbfuck

>Buy a car
>Complain about the poor transmission
>Car dealer steals your car in the middle of the night
>"You aren't entitled to a refund".

>>58308332
>And you received service until you badmouth their business and damage their brand.
They should fix their software if they don't want people to say valid criticisms

>>58308753
>oh look, another kike company acting like kikes
His blood sugar was low and acted a tad impulsively toward the critic. It's not his fault.

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/ham-radio-deluxe-support-hacked-my-computer.547962/page-38#post-4073533

>>58308779
Man, that's the perfect excuse. I know what I will use now when I steal things from my friends.

>>58308396
>>58308332
Where the fuck do you live? China?

Damaged their brand? Aren't entitled a refund? Or anything?

There isn't a quantum shift from intelligence to sentience and then a refactoring of the body for an "entity". Companies put themselves out there to provide a service that they hope people will like and take to.

Assuming this company was put there to feed you this product, the way totalitarian companies might for their subjects, is a total misconstruition. I won't reply anymore until you've cleared that up for yourself. That or moved out of China, you edgy fag.

>>58308468
This idiot is just a collection of misanthropes.

>>58308179
You told him. Good job.

>>58308779
Not his fault for acting on impulse?

>>58308509
He rated the product, he didn't set it to a list among other competing products and brands. He simply stated his level of satisfaction with the product with reason to tow. If there aren't alternatives he will just really dislike his time spent using that service but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve the purpose. He is simply attributing to society by way of Social Darwinism.

"Look at me, I bought and paid for this product and it was shit. Look at me, I'm an idiot that bought this. Don't be me."

>>58308509
It might have still served its purpose despite having significant issues.

>people actually defending the company

This is obviously illegal and was even recently reinforced by the Consumer Review Fairness Act.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5111
>This bill makes a provision of a form contract void from the inception if it: (1) prohibits or restricts an individual who is a party to such a contract from engaging in written, oral, or pictorial reviews, or other similar performance assessments or analyses of, including by electronic means, the goods, services, or conduct of a person that is also a party to the contract; (2) imposes penalties or fees against individuals who engage in such communications; or (3) transfers or requires the individual to transfer intellectual property rights in review or feedback content (with the exception of a nonexclusive license to use the content) in any otherwise lawful communications about such person or the goods or services provided by such person.

File: 3de49f5656c69529f8ba89f7531fee1b.jpg (53KB, 485x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 485x480px

>>58307991
This is the future you collectively chose.

>>58308989

>the tyrannical obama regime says its bad therefore it is bad

lmao, can't wait for trump to fix this retarded anti-business stalin-tier bullshit

>>58308989
>>people actually defending the company
One "person"

>>58309028
>its tyrannical to have consumer protections that stop malicious business practices

>>58309085

there's no such thing as a 'malicious' business practice. if a business was harming it's own customers they wouldn't be in business as everyone would flock to a competitor.

>>58309028
Asking business to act within common decency does not make you anti-business. It is the government's duty to stop malicious acts against individuals.

HI DEESH!

>>58309106

hahahaha

back to your fucking containment board

>>58309106
The invisible hands of the free market are too busy rubbing together to fix anything.

>>58309106
>theres no such thing as businesses going out of their way to mislead customers into buying their shotty product.

>They wouldn't be in business
>everyone would flock to a competitor

Yea in your deluded hindsight where everything is automatically transparent and you can see through walls.

There IS such thing as a malicious business practice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Oh should customers have known they were ingesting a chemical that caused ammonia synthesis to take place and poisoned them? Maybe those dead infants should have known spectroscopically there was melamine in their milk

>>58309116
>It is the government's duty to stop malicious acts against individuals.

No it isn't you delusional communist.

>>58309106
I would rather the harm never take effect against consumers in the first place.

>>58309143

what is governments role

>>58309143
>you're as communist because you wanna stick up for consumer rights

You're fucking delusional

>>58309138
Non-issue. The parents of the dead babies will soon flock to competing brands.

>>58309154

to defend the nation from subversive external threats. the state has no business in the dealings or wallet of a business or individual.

>>58309143
That is its sole purpose and reason for existence. This isn't a communist viewpoint.

>>58309154
to ruin jews' days, and we can't have that, now, can we goy

>>58309143
That's exactly government's roll. If buisness could be trusted we wouldn't need 95% of government.

>>58308588
>willingly enter an agreement with a third party
>third party enforces part of the agreement
>this is somehow wrong
kys familia, hopefully him and all those faggots that just click yes continue I agree without reading will finally take a second to see in what shit they are getting into

>>58309028
Except what the company did was illegal even before this bill passed. If you pay for a service and the company doesn't provide said service you are entitled to a full refund and in some cases more (if you are victim of discrimination for example). What this bill now makes illegal is a company prohibiting/punishing you from reviewing their product/service.

>>58309173
The parents are dead, it wasn't just infant formula

>no its ok that people died

>its ok to be malicious at someone elses expense

>>58309193
>If buisness could be trusted we wouldn't need 95% of government.

Exactly. 95% of the government only exists now because they get an easy handout by victimizing honest businessmen though tyrannical taxation and unnecessary regulation.

>>58309201
That business has an illegal contract and acted upon it illegally see >>58308989

>>58309218
>business man goes out of his way to lie and false advertise
>he's being honest why you gotta keep him down, poor business man
>he din du nuffin

>>58309218
But the regulation is necessary, as you have shown.

>>58309213

are you retarded? no business is willingly killing it's customers. they wouldn't make money if everyone bought their product once and then die from it. you are conflating a sociopath poisoning the supply chain with 'muh evil business! eat the rich!''

>>58309178
>to defend the nation from subversive external threats

oh ok

i guess predatory businesses don't fit that or anything

fucking dumbfuck

>>58309218
There is no such thing as an honest businessman.

>>58309201
>If I write it into a contract, anything is legal!
You're astoundingly retarded

>>58309251
There is no such thing as an honest government tbqh too.

>>58309242
>no business is willingly killing it's customers
That company that laced its milk with ammonia willingly killed its customers to fake a nutrition test.

>You're a sociopath for demanding people have consumer protections
thats the complete opposite of a sociopath. A sociopath (like you) wouldn't care that people are suffering at the hands of a malicious business

>>58309201
Why as has been pointed out most if not all of an EULA is lrgaly unenforcable and just put in to by idiots who think they can bully other people.

File: 1482472465024.jpg (15KB, 384x395px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 384x395px

>this thread

>>58309269
This, many judges have ruled in favor of customers and that company's terms of service are unenforceable. Its why Credit Card Companies were forced to drop their 4 page credit card agreement with tons of legal jargon because people couldn't reasonably be held accountable to understand it. Now Credit Card companies have a 1 page document that describes the credit card contract in clear concise language

>>58308396

Do you not think that people who purchase goods, should be protected in some way when speaking about the quality of those goods or services?

>>58308534
>If this was my company I'd revoke your license on the spot and then bill you for wasting my time if you made a hitpiece about my company.

Yeah, that's not how it works. Are you 12?

>>58309201
>finally take a second to see
Did you? 4chan has a terms of service, as well.

>>58309349

he comes from /pol/ so what do you think

>>58309263
The difference is that a government has the potential to be democratically selected and enforced by its citizens. A private company does not work this way by definition, and is controlled by only a few men that can bully many people in the hopes of making money.

>>58309380
If they bully people enough, no one will buy their products and services. Like government, but less volatile.
#democracyforbusiness
#yourcorporationisamonarchy

You're all getting trolled, just let the thread die.

>>58308764
lol transmission

>>58307991
>using proprietary shitware
>2017 + 3 days

>>58309213
>The parents are dead, it wasn't just infant formula
I bet the business is now bankrupt
The free market solved another problem

>>58309420
They are granted a lot more leeway BECAUSE they are privatized and non-transparent. If the consumer suspects fraud, there is no oversight to confirm it. If the company is partaking in a fraudulent practice and people find out about it, we have discovered that A) people are remarkably forgiving, or just completely ignorant, and B) "too big to fail" companies know that they can get away with more because of the clout they have. What you are saying is all fine and dandy in theory, but it rarely works out that way in reality.

>>58307991
>sue
>demand a jury (you can demand this in civil suits)
>laugh as they try to explain to the jury that they're justified in destroying your property over a negative review
>collect money+fees+compensation
>post about it for even more publicity

Terms of service don't mean shit when a jury gets involved.

>>58307991
Good.

Self-entitled consumers need to be taught a lesson in control and humility once in a while.

>>58309787
The business is gone, the two lead executives were executed for knowingly poisoning their product

>free market
No the chinese government enforced their laws

>its the "everything is customer's fault" edgy /pol/ tier arguments

>>58308512
That is a legally binding contract though. I'm a manager at Starbucks and we do this all the time.

>>58311286
>That is a legally binding contract though
Not entirely.

>>58311286
You make the customers give you blowjobs?

File: ChromeBananaHoldBowl_l.jpg (15KB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 260x260px

>>58311286
Agreed. In my experience, even if you pay with a giftcard, the blowjob clause is still in effect.

File: shrug.png (20KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x407px

As long as companies that do this get lots of publicity so I can avoid them, I don't really care

>>58307991
>still more drama in the world of ham, a dying hobby on its last leg.
>more news at 10, just after our documentary on xbox drama.

>>58307991
Jesus christ how absurd can capitalism get?

Learn sheeple, use no user- subjugating software.

>>58311389
>the blowjob clause is still in effect
Of course it is, but the blowjob liability actually resides with the customer who purchased the giftcard (and, according to the EULA, it is non-transferable). In most cases though, we don't make that big of a deal out of it -- as long as SOMEONE sucks our dicks, we're fine.

File: IMG_2888.png (220KB, 500x771px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 500x771px

>>58309218

>>58308332
>And you received service until you badmouth their business and damage their brand. You aren't entitled to a refund (or anything for that matter).
Oh I see. You're obviously a very astute lawyer.

>>58308124
>believing the lies o the fat pedo kike

>>58308167
Service is just that, a service.

In these days, where everything is a service/license rather than complete ownership, vendors have reserved the right to cancel/revoke licenses of any unruly customers.

>>58307991
This is clearly the fault of big government. I say we let the companies do what they want. Surely, competition will lead to success.
>>58309201
Absolutely. Contracts between two parties of vastly unequal power are inherently equal.

File: Promotions!.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>ITT: Experienced Lawyers

>>58308623
>Just because you don't like the product does not make it a bad one nor a 'scam'. You are not entitled to a refund.
the software did not deliver and the developer knew that. instead of patching the problem they tell their customers to fix it themselves. that's just lazy.

File: 1510607_775246335832861_3018130892105802141_n.jpg (3KB, 112x124px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 112x124px

>>58308002
FBI spotted

>>58308352
I ran into this when looking through GNU shit on Wikipedia once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Radio

>>58309272
>>>/pol/

>>58308353
>someone who went out of their way to tarnish your brand and drive away other potential customers.
Or warn them to not buy something shitty that they had to write a negative review about it. If I make a pizza and someone complains that the crust is too chewy and the cheese is weird, I'm incentivized to make a better pizza, not continue to make a shitty pizza while lambasting those who criticize my food and making myself look like a autstic child to everyone else by banning negative reviews like some sjw faggot who can't handle criticism.

>>58314827
What you should be doing is taking the pizza back, they have besmirched your name and damaged your reputation for no reason other than a poor quality product. Go round with a knife and cut it out of their stomach immediately, you had written that you could revoke the right to the pizza at any point on the inside of the box under the pizza right?

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1481838059783.gif (899KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 250x188px

>The developer of Ham Radio Deluxe – a popular app used by thousands of hams – has restructured its management following claims it punished users who wrote critical reviews.

>HRD Software said in a statement on Friday that co-founder Rick Ruhl will step down to pursue other interests. Ruhl, along with co-owners Mike Carper and Randy Gawtry, ran the radio software company after buying the rights to the code in 2011.

>The reshuffle comes after HRD found itself under scrutiny after it remotely disabled copies of the software belonging to users who spoke out against the company on various amateur radio websites and forums.

>Ruhl was, essentially, blamed by customers for his organization's poor handling of complaints and bad reviews. After one user went public about how his copy was blackballed in revenge for posting a negative review, it was followed by further claims that HRD had similarly retaliated against others – and had maintained a "blacklist" of radio handles that had been blocked from using the software.

>Rick Ruhl

>>58314904
>Source:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/03/ham_radio_deluxe_management_change/

>>58314904
Ah I see the problem, they don't know how to fix the problem because they can't actually code.

>>58308396
>>Strawman. This isn't what happened. This person went out of their way to disparage the developers and brand of the company that made this software

Yes he did, as is his LEGAL ASS RIGHT. It is illegal (slander) if what he said was verifiably false, and it can be proven in a court of law that he said it with the intent of causing harm to the company. What he said (that the software didn't work with windows 10) was true, and his intent was probably to inform other consumers of this fact. Even if it wasn't, there is no way to prove it. From the perspective of the law, he is innocent. From the perspective of morality, he did the right thing. You have no argument

>>58307991
The Ham Radio Deluxe devs are awful cunts. It was donation-ware for a long time but the original guy sold it to some cucks.

File: d.jpg (29KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x360px

>>58314979
>they can't actually code.
It's not their fault.

File: N.gif (408KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 500x376px

>>58314904
>Rick Ruhl
pottery

>>58315069
stupid old shits who do ham radio are the worst fucking pieces of shit on earth. also most of them are still running windows 95 for all their shitty proprietary legacy software for ham shit that only runs on win95.

>>58308332
>>58308002
>>58308151
(You)

>>58315120
Most hams have nothing to do with what you're on about. Of course there are a lot of CB'ers with Tech tickets but this doesn't fucking mean shit.

>the state of winblows software.

>>58308002
True enough. They deserve all the negative publicity they are gonna get for this, though.

>>58309842
>be forced to go to jury duty
>sit there in disbelief as two ham planets walk it
>mfw they introduce themselves to the court by their call sign and not their fucking name
>they proceed to ramble on about how they met each other on 14.234251342345 mhz and worked out this deal for one of them to be able to use the first ones home made abortion of a win 95 gui tier windows interface for some shit tier 80s radio equipment
>it had some bugs and the first autist flipped out and left a bad review on some forum
>the first one saw it and deactivated the license
>mfw the are now screaming 10codes at each other
>wtf.. one just screamed "QRL" and stormed out of the court room

>>58308332
>Also, those are nanny state tier regulations that shouldn't exist
Just stop, you're making us libertarians look bad.

>>58308002
that's why america became 3rd world country

File: rustleface.jpg (7KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 282x179px

>>58308989

>falling for obvious bait

>>58308002
>>58308151
Is this what americans really think?

Guy exercised his first amendment to free speech to write a negative review based on objective facts and a company handled the review by damaging the guy's property.

Seems pretty open and shut the company was just completely wrong.

>>58308002
I would've agreed with you if they had refunded him

>>58318227
A company cannot just repossess his property though, he paid for it it's his to do with as he wants. It's his choice to give the software back to the company and then demand a refund not theirs. The most correct thing they could have done would be to offer him a full/partial refund for the software not working as intended and allowing him to continue to using the software.

Free software doesn't have this problem

>>58308002
>>58308151
>lolbertardians

>HAM radio stuff

Autism. Nobody cares.

>>58308534
You're the most retarded retard I've ever seen; good job, that's impressive.

It's not an attack on their business, it's a negative review because the company is ran by idiots that don't want to properly develop or manage their software. Then they act like toddlers and restrict the customer's purchased license to the software, without any form of refund, then blackmail them into removing any negative press about their bullshit, shitty company to re-invoke their PURCHASE license.

If you think that's acceptable, please kill yourself.

>>58308002
There wouldn't be anything wrong with this if they had refunded him.

>>58308151
That's thievery. If while you're on the train you leave a negative review on the train company, they don't have the right to stop and kick you out. You paid your ticket, they're obligated to provide the service you paid for.

>>58319257
No it would still be wrong, you can't steal someone's property and then try to pay them off when you get caught.

There's a proper way to do this that doesn't involve theft. They offer him a refund and then ask that he discontinue using the software and then revoke his license.

>>58308396
>If they had first tried to approach the developers with feedback/bug reports
That's exactly what he did you colossal retard

>>58308002
This would only be acceptable if they gave him his money back. Otherwise they had no right to do this, retard.

>>58308124
That's freedom to use, though.

>>58308002
> 'I'd like to buy a car'
> 'Here you go anon'
Wheel becomes loose after 300 miles
> 'I don't like this car'
> 'Ok, fuck you, we're gonna take it away and keep the money'
Go suck a corporate dick, ya knobhead.

>>58318208
>the guy's property
No, the guy did not own anything.

Also, you have a gross misunderstanding of the first amendment.

The first amendment does not prevent private parties from treating you differently based on what you say.

It prevents non-civil prosecution for (most) things you might say.

It's like they've never heard of the Streisand effect

>>58307991
Dick move, but they didn't do anything wrong.

>>58320280
>No, the guy did not own anything.
He owned the software. It doesn't matter what the EULA says he owns the software. The fact that they later refunded him is irrelevant they damaged his property.

>>58320545
>He owned the software. It doesn't matter what the EULA says he owns the software.
No, he doesn't.

File: Screenshot_20161019023000.png (757KB, 953x686px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 953x686px

>>58308002
>thinks he's a richfag
>actually just a retard

File: 1476043817481.jpg (34KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x500px

I understand borderline trolling and mental illness but some people here are being serious at defending a corporate institution. Calling people cucks when you want to get fucked in the ass that badly.

>>58308332
This is your brain on murrica.

Land of the brain-free.

File: ee8b125087d22d499fe4e3dd3187e493.jpg (11KB, 226x255px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 226x255px

>>58308700
Jumping from one jew to another.
>not a true /pol/ack

>>58308700
Trump is yet another jew. And you're gladly riding his dick.

>>58309173
I feel kinda bad for finding this so funny.

>>58308534
Pretty sure you are not an owner of a business, just another consumer. Yet you defend corporations, why?

>>58308534
>hitpiece
Did you even read the review? The dude raises very valid points in a respectful manner and points out how to fix the issue. He's already shown good faith in pointing out how to fix it. The fact that in September of 2016, the software didn't fully support Windows 10 is ridiculous considering the massive forced adoption of that OS pushed by Microsoft. Honestly, any software company worth a damn should have made their software fully compatible with Windows 10 in the summertime or before, not months after. Windows 10 currently accounts for 25% of consumer OS, and an even greater portion of Windows-only OS (also consider no XP support knocks out 10% of computers).

This was a piece of paid software for Windows that doesn't work on 30% or more Windows machines. To point that out is completely reasonable. That's the point of reviews; to let users know about shortcomings of a product.

Get fucked, shill.

>>58309173
This wouldn't happened in the first place if there was proper regulation and consumer protecting laws.

>>58309787
There's nothing stopping another business from doing that again in your 'free market'.

Reminder that Apple and Google actively brick peoples software using their appstore mechanism. Apple even removes software from your device. Google just makes it so you never get the updates eventuallybvricking the software.

>>58322029
But has it ever been because of a negative review?

this wouldn't have happened if the software was free as in freedom.

but go on, go defend the companies that can't be evil because they're only making money :^)

File: 1468660938642.png (78KB, 800x700px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x700px

>>58308002
Windows user detected

>>58322596
Sure, Lincuck. ;-}

>>58322596
Get raped twice and kill yourself, you dumb fucking shit stain.

>>58308002
>le edgy first post meme
kys

File: 1442575722682.gif (1MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x250px

>>58322878
Linux user detected.

Why bother with nonfunctional and unsupported OS?

File: currysoft-shill-station.png (2MB, 882x1300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 882x1300px

>>58323177
>>58323203
>>58323310
something smells like saag paneer and diarrhea

>>58314269
this tbqh

the big scope of the image is whether or not the user agreed to the notion upon purchase of the license as to the company's right to revoke it, which would probably read something like
>We, the developers, have every right to revoke your license for any reason at any time.
which is the ultimate legal "fuck you" you can ever write in a contract, but is simply left there because most people know good and well nobody reads that shit.

if there wasn't anything like that, then they're in the wrong. If there was, there's nothing the end user can do.

of course this is probably all a long con to mine those precious (You)s but it's become hard for me to discern trolling from legitimate retardation.

>>58323530
you can't put just anything in a license and have it be legally binding

>>58323530
They can do whatever they want, doesn't mean they should.

File: 1476202162393.jpg (625KB, 1440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1440x1440px

>>58323439
Clean your room.

File: 1476959839281.jpg (36KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 540x540px

>>58323556
Yes you can.

Technically speaking, by posting on 4chan you're agreeing to the ruleset laid out by the people who maintain the website. Failure to comply to that results in revoking your right to post here. There's nothing much you can do about it, since it's their website and not yours. The only way you could change that is to own the website yourself, but I doubt you'd have enough money or sway to do that.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles. You may not like it, but there isn't much you can do about it.

>>58314674
>>>/trash/

>>58323697
>Yes you can.
No you can't. There are examples which should be clear to you if you thought about it at all.

>>58323770
Give me some then, since you seem so sure of yourself that you're right.

>just fucking google it im not gonna spoonfeed you
not an argument

>>58309148
>Please Big brother protect me from all harm in my life, I need my safe place

>>58323801
>By using the software you agree to submit to the sexual desires of the developer at any time for any reason
It's not something that comes up, but it's an example of something obviously illegal to put in a contract or license. Did you even try to think about it?

>>58323852
>It's not something that comes up
Because it's ridiculous to even consider putting in there.
>it's an example of something obviously illegal to put in a contract or license
It's totally legal. It's not prostitution, and legally speaking it's not rape since you consented to it by agreeing to the given terms.

>>58323899
>It's totally legal
no

>>58323920
Denying it's existence doesn't make it go away, anon

File: N.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>58323697
>Asking people to kill themselves in EULA

>>58323943
>it's legal because I say so
Cite a source for your claim

>>58324012
How do you cite a source to the notion of consent being a thing, anon?

It should be common sense that agreeing to do something is considered consent.

I literally don't want to argue this though because all we're going to do is go in circles and post smug anime pictures until the thread dies or gets deleted by some jani. It's just not worth arguing with someone who can't sensibly think about anything

>>58324078
>How do you cite a source
Maybe a case where someone challenged such a contract and lost?
>I don't want to argue about this anymore because you're asking me to back up my claims
If contracts are really "anything goes" then why does the following boilerplate exist:
>To the extent possible, if any provision of this agreement is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this agreement without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.

>>58308989
It's copyright. Retaining the right to revoke permission isn't a contractual penalty. The government isn't being asked to enforce any penalty in contract, you simply no longer have lawful access.

>>58324195
Copyright permissions deal with being able to make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work, not being able to read/use the work.

>>58308002
nigger

>>58324243
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

>>58324287
>A typical software license grants the licensee, typically an end-user, permission to use one or more copies of software in ways where such a use would otherwise potentially constitute copyright infringement of the software owner's exclusive rights under copyright law.
>where such a use would otherwise potentially constitute copyright infringement of the software owner's exclusive rights under copyright law
Did you even read what you linked?

>>58324321
It doesn't say you're entitled to access to their servers.

>>58307991
>The "customer support" at HRD Software then pointed the user to its terms of service, stating that it had the right to do what it had just done.

No, it doesn't.
ToS doesn't oversee fucking laws.

>>58324354
I don't know the specifics of this software, but if it could be used totally offline without accessing the developer's servers it doesn't apply here. In either case, software licenses don't tend to cover server usage agreements, that's a separate terms of service.

>>58324354
It does, if license in question requires that server.

>>58307991
>HRD Software reserves the "right" to "disable a customer's key at any time for any reason.

top kek

>>58324381
>license requires
What?

>>58324411
if software requires servers to run, it means it's in the fucking license agreement to use their and only their servers.

Also Ruhl who made this blacklist was fired.

>>58308002
I don't like my tax payment, can the gubernment revoke the bills so I don't have to get them and pay them?
Oh and I don't like by house rent or my car loan either.

>>58324447
Which doesn't grant you perpetual entitlement to use their servers.
Buying an online game doesn't mean they can't ban you.
This software apparently required phoning home in order to remain operational. They revoked the activation, which is their right.

>>58324551
Ethically and/or morally wrong.

>>58324638
You'd be saying the opposite if you were on the other side. Your suburban white male self-entitlement is not exactly an unbiased set of morals.

ITT: /pol/tards defending dindunuffin biznis you should have known you got scammed customer rights are harmful to businesses

File: 1481957138813.jpg (114KB, 758x542px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 758x542px

>>58324698
Everyone is someone else's consumer at the end of the day, what's your point?

>>58314886
>they have besmirched your name and damaged your reputation
M'lady thinkest thou is but a petulant child who has obtained a thesaurus by ill gotten means.

>>58308002
I don't like your nigger logic so I should revoke your ability to shitpost.

>>58324745
>customer rights are harmful to businesses

>"hey, this power supply I bought is DOA and there's cables missing. I'll RMA and get a replacement. Oh shit, this new one is also dead, and it's even missing screws and cables this time! I should write a review about my experience with this seller to warn others who think about buying this awful product."
>"hold it right there, you can't say anything bad about our potentially harmful product/service or else we'll keep your money and sue you for saying our awful product is awful!"

Lolbertarians, please leave.

>>58325505

there is a big difference between selling someone a physical product and selling someone a license that grants them access to software

>>58307991
Well, let's hope this company crashes.