Why is Google allowed to remove purchases from our Play Store accounts without telling us?
Why is Google allowed to remove purchases from our Play Store accounts without telling us?
Because you signed (digitally) an agreement that lets them do that.
Pirate everything.
Also, don't use Google. Wherever possible.
If you have an Android, they are increasingly making it impossible to not use them. They continue to punish users that choose to unlock the bootloader or root, and Google Play Services are an inescapable prerequisite to many apps, regardless of side loading ability.
"the boot loader is only safe if it is signed by Google"
How ever did I get out of the '80s with computers with dangerous unsigned boot loaders
I've used F-Droid without unlocking the bootloader or rooting or Google Play services integration. Developers are free to use F-Droid, most just choose not to. Hopefully it becomes even more popular as gplay has more issues.
Don’t buy games on Steam or Valve Corporation, they make you sign the User Agreement that legally waves your rights and ownership of games.
Actually, Steam is usually one of the best places when it comes to refunds. The process is simple, and they're willing to make exceptions to the rules. And the company is run by one of the few CEOs in the gaming industry who seem to actually understand gaming.
AU lawsuit against Valve proves Valve didn’t want to refund their customers. Valve is guilty of this violation of Australia law. Many people who used Steam before 2010 tell people they were never given refunds oran option for refunds.
Valve is not good guys, they fought the Australia government to the very top to not pay or offer refunds. They are greedy.
They literally had to be sued by multiple jurisdictions to even offer refunds. The cult of Valve needs to die.
Read by almost no one, it is interesting because in many countries contracts are considered invalid if one of the parties is not properly informed and still accepts, affirmative consent is legally crucial.
Everyone knows that EULAs violate it systematically, tens or hundreds of millions a day, but it doesn't seem to be a matter of interest.
Whenever I see a checkbox or something that just says "Check here to confirm you accept our privacy policy" I think it's funny because all I am legally agreeing to are the words actually in front of me. Sure, I agree with the standalone words "our privacy policy". I'm not sure what that does for you, but i guess "our privacy policy" is an acceptable string of words.
My last order in a questionable shop had a 'return policy' pop up, i had to screenshot. It was empty.
Imagine how hard it would be to buy stuff or use free services if you actually had to read and understand the contracts every time.
Ok, I’ll just quickly check on Google maps what’s south of Mongolia. Oh, I need to read all that before seeing the map? Well, maybe later. Don’t really have the time for that right now.
If that’s what life was like, laziness would win nearly every time and companies would have hardly any users or customers. Eventually some companies would probably make super short contracts in order to lower the threshold.
I can already see it: "We'll do whatever we want without accepting any responsibility and we'll spy on you to monetize it. Click here to accept."
It's a complicated issue, maybe with summaries, requiring affirmative consent only for certain actions, or splitting them up? I don't know, it all seems messy. But I hope it leaves behind the expectation that we lie by agreeing to sell your firstborn's soul after reading for hours in legalese.
LOL, that was a brilliant summary about what these contracts usually boil down to. However, they should probably include these things too: “You’re not allowed to do anything cool. If anything goes wrong, it’s always your fault.”
These brutally honest super short contracts could be fun to read.
Additionally, we can try to change the laws so we do actually own a copy.
But we never owned a copy of any software or movie ever. We always had a license to watch or use the copy we purchased.
Why does that matter to my point?
"But we've always been enslaved. We've never had rights as individuals in the first place." Is not an argument against change.
