>We've seen lots of terrible responses to negative reviews and other online criticism -- most of which end with the offended party having earned plenty of new enemies and gained nothing at all in the reputation department. If it's not completely bogus libel lawsuits, it's bogus fees being charged to end users for violating non-disparagement clauses buried deep within the company's terms of service.
>Fortunately, a federal law going into effect next year will limit some of this bullshit behavior. It won't prevent companies and individuals from filing bogus libel lawsuits, but it will prevent entities from using contractual clauses as prior restraint on negative reviews and criticism.
>This tactic, however, is a new twist on the old "punish customers for negative reviews" game. A user of Ham Radio Deluxe wasn't too happy with its apparent incompatibility with Windows 10. He posted a negative review of the software at eHam.net, calling out the company for its seeming unwillingness to fix the underlying issue.
>The company's response? We've intentionally bricked your software because of your negative review at eHam.
>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. HRD Software reserves the "right" to "disable a customer's key at any time for any reason." Then it told him the blacklisting would be revoked if he removed his negative review.
There's nothing wrong with this. He didn't like the software so they revoked his license.
Landon Bennett
The least they could've done was refund him.
Carson Foster
>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
There's no reason for a business to continue providing you service if you don't like the service.
Jonathan Powell
Yes there is. The service was paid for.
Charles Fisher
>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.
Kevin Lopez
I'd just like to interject for a moment. You appear to be using an element from this image in your post: 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:
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~
Jonathan Brooks
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.
Logan Wood
>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 Sup Forums 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~
Colton White
Jesus christ
John Ramirez
At least he should have his money back. What kind of bullshit is this?
Henry Gray
It is the "we can write anything we want in the EULA" kind of bullshit.
Thomas Walker
Except you pay for a service. Like a good once you pay for it its yours
Lincoln Ramirez
>the phrase "I'd just like to interject for a moment" is copyrighted sure user-kun
Jonathan Cox
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).
>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.
Cooper Sanders
Is there a FOSS alternative to this software for anyone interested in HAM radio?
Jace Ramirez
>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.
Lincoln Campbell
(You)
Cooper Cox
>you don't get to use it anymore because you said it had problems
Gabriel Murphy
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.
Leo Howard
>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.
Landon Ramirez
>calling out the company for its seeming unwillingness to fix the underlying issue. This strongly hints that he has approached them.
Daniel Reyes
Or the blogger just wrote a review on their website or on his blog
Bentley Thompson
A negative review isn't "disparaging the developers" or the software.
William Barnes
>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
Samuel Torres
There are consumer protection laws for a reason
Brayden Clark
Nope, the bad '''review''' was published months before he approached the developers with feedback.
Oliver Nelson
Who fucking cares.
Michael Richardson
Bruce Perens would know. He's into that.
Daniel Reyes
AKA useless government meddling.
Elijah Hall
You're a dumbass and nice bait
Ryder Foster
>HAM
literal autism in this day in age
Matthew Russell
I love you Sup Forums
Jason Miller
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?
Ayden Ortiz
the customers deserve to be protected from companies that abuse customers via false advertisement erroneous EULA's and shitty business practises
Xavier Turner
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.
Josiah Collins
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
Dylan Richardson
>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.
Juan Richardson
That entirly hinges upon if hs review was accurate, Did the software have the problems he listed?
Jose Hughes
>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.
Camden Garcia
"Cutting ties" only works if they refunded his money, even partially.
Evan Jones
>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
Nolan Hill
>hurrrrrrr companies can do anything KYS
Sebastian Morales
>lawfully Darn that law, always getting in the way.
Liam Hughes
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
Jordan Miller
>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.
Jordan Roberts
dying
Benjamin Mitchell
>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.
Isaac Campbell
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.
Oliver Davis
>bad track records You mean from people posting negative reviews? B-but those are harmful!
Jeremiah Cruz
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.
Lincoln Watson
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.
Leo Gomez
>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
Joshua Rogers
>EU sucks that americans don't get these protections
Aussies get 30 days to return it
Daniel Cruz
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?
Grayson Bailey
Their loss.
Logan Phillips
>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?
Chase Ward
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.
Sebastian Gray
>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
Ryder Mitchell
>there's no reason for a business not to act like petulant children
Matthew Nguyen
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.
Jaxson Reed
>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
Jace Hernandez
oh look, another kike company acting like kikes
back to your containment board dumbfuck
Joseph Parker
>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".
Michael Green
>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
Owen Morgan
>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.
Man, that's the perfect excuse. I know what I will use now when I steal things from my friends.
Joshua Howard
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.
Jacob Thompson
This idiot is just a collection of misanthropes.
Kayden Allen
You told him. Good job.
Dominic Ramirez
Not his fault for acting on impulse?
Nathan Bennett
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."
Jace Garcia
It might have still served its purpose despite having significant issues.
Jayden Wilson
>people actually defending the company
This is obviously illegal and was even recently reinforced by the Consumer Review Fairness Act.
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.
Sebastian Kelly
This is the future you collectively chose.
Ryan Turner
>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
Ayden Garcia
>>people actually defending the company One "person"
Gabriel Watson
>its tyrannical to have consumer protections that stop malicious business practices
Landon Gutierrez
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.
Alexander Green
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.
Matthew Rivera
HI DEESH!
Gabriel Bailey
hahahaha
back to your fucking containment board
Dominic Martin
The invisible hands of the free market are too busy rubbing together to fix anything.
Angel Diaz
>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.
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
John Lewis
>It is the government's duty to stop malicious acts against individuals.
No it isn't you delusional communist.
Sebastian Hall
I would rather the harm never take effect against consumers in the first place.
Jeremiah Williams
what is governments role
Asher Wright
>you're as communist because you wanna stick up for consumer rights
You're fucking delusional
Julian Brooks
Non-issue. The parents of the dead babies will soon flock to competing brands.
Landon Scott
to defend the nation from subversive external threats. the state has no business in the dealings or wallet of a business or individual.
Cameron Fisher
That is its sole purpose and reason for existence. This isn't a communist viewpoint.
Gabriel Thomas
to ruin jews' days, and we can't have that, now, can we goy
Leo Lopez
That's exactly government's roll. If buisness could be trusted we wouldn't need 95% of government.
Ryan King
>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
Joseph Russell
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.
Ayden Bell
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
Andrew Wilson
>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.
Isaac Sullivan
That business has an illegal contract and acted upon it illegally see >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
