sent from a mobile device On Dec 9, 2011 2:37 AM, "Al Sutton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is no such thing as a "right to refuse service". Users to not have a > default right to use any service without entering into an agreement with > the service provider, so as long as the refusal to provide a service does > not breach any contract or law, a developer is well within their rights to > ban users as they wish. > > That's why companies like Google can shut down users AdSense accounts > without any notice and not tell you what you've done to be banned from the > service let alone providing any proof you have actually done anything > wrong, and why they can refuse to provide services such as Google Music, > and their latest app (Currents) to users who live outside a single country > without providing any reason. > > I'm sure we could go around this loop many times, but a lot of people seem > to think they have a right of entitlement which they do not. You can > consider a service provider to be pretty dumb to stop a user or users from > using their service, but you don't have any rights to force a third party > to offer you their work just because you want it. > > Al. > -- > T: @alsutton W: www.funkyandroid.com > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or > it's subsidiaries. > > On 9 Dec 2011, at 08:19, Sony Antony wrote: > > The "right to refuse service" is a very much limited right. > > A business / corporate / others / cannot refuse service based on race, > place of birth, religion, sexual orientation, political affillitiation, > etc. > > A restaurant which refuse service to a person who comes in a dirty and > un-hygenic setup can be justified, as it will cause difficulties to their > customers who are having food. Same logic will apply to a person who > behaves improperly (yelling, using foul language,...) at a restaurant. > > A night club which refuses service to people who do not agree to their > dress code restrictions, can be justified in the sense that they might lose > business to rival clubs if members do not adhere to any particular dress > code. > > A web site / service / online forum can be justified if they remove > postings (refuse service) that are vulgar or promotes enmity, hatred, etc.. > It is in their TOU that explicitly prohibits such postings. This can be > justified as it will in some manner cause disruption to the normal and > smooth conduct of the forum. > > A software developer can refuse software support if the customer tries to > reverse engineer their software (disasembling, modifying ). It is their TOU > that clearly prohibits such activities. However, there is no kill switch > here. > > A device manufacturer (say a cd player) can cancel warranty if the user > opens the cabinet or gets it serviced by unauthorised people, because the > warranty document clearly says so and the user accepts this when buying the > product. The device still may or may not work as usual, but the device > manufacturer do not have the right to stop the working of the device. > > Software developers can upgrading software. Discontinuing old software > support is also practiced after a reasonable time. (for eg;Microsoft has > extended support for Windows XP to 2015). It has to be noted here that even > after 2015, windows xp will still work (with no support from microsoft). > There is no kill switch here too. > > However banning a user all together just because he writes negative > reviews on forums is extreme. I dont think that any software manufacturer > (microsoft/oracle/...) bans users from writing negative reviews about their > product, or has ever killed the software of a user who writes negative > reviews. > > Someone writing negative reviews somewhere, does in no way cause > disruption in the working of your software. Also, it does not affect your > existing customers / users in any way. No disruption of anything occurs. If > your product is good more people will continue to use it, irrespective of > any rogue user posting negative reviews. > > > So it will take a jury to decide whether applying the "right to refuse > service" in this case is legally justified or not. > > > Anyway it would be interesting to see the following line in someone's > App's TOU > > :-) > > "By downloading and using this software you lose your right to speak > openly about the negative aspects of this software. You shall not post > negative reviews about this product in forums / blogs or in other online / > offline places. You also stand to lose your right to speak to someone > negatively about this software. You are however encouraged to post positive > aspects only about this software. You are hereby informed that in case of > any negative reviews from your part, you will be banned from using this > service. You will be disconnected without notice." > > :-) > > > If this banning logic is applied, no body will be able to make any > negative comments about anything, out of the fear of getting disconnected / > banned. > > A journalist who reviews restaurants / films / etc will never be able to > write negative reviews - out of the fear that the restaurant / film > producer will ban the journalist from visiting the restaurant / viewing > films of the producer in future. > > It is generally considered that a business can refuse service only to > protect its legitimate business interest and to uphold the interests of its > customers / users. > > This right is in a constant state of change and needs to be evolved > further to clear ambiguities regarding in what all circumstances > application of this right is legal and justified. > > What I feel is refusal of service should be done only as an extreme step > (irrespective of whether the app is free or paid), and with utmost caution, > unless you want to open yourself up to litigations. > > It is not clear whether google supports this kind of behavior from android > apps or not. > > Anyway, this discussion group has been very much informative and live. > > -- > Regards, > Sony Antony. > +919388700531 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM, rich friedel <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Microsoft just put verbiage in their newest XBL update that explicitly >> forbids you to take part in a class action against them... To them I say... >> good luck with that LOL >> >> >> On Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:08:51 AM UTC-5, joel witherspoon wrote: >>> >>> >"Banning users" (not sure exactly what you mean by that) is one thing, >>>> >but disabling an app that someone has already paid for? I don't think >>>> >Microsoft or Oracle would do that. I think they'd be leaving >>>> >themselves open to lawsuits. They can refuse to do any future business >>>> >with anyone they want, but once a customer has purchased a product or >>>> >service, they can't just renege on the contract. >>>> >>>> Microsoft, Oracle, AT&T, Verizon, etc. all do this. It's in there EULA >>> and TOU contracts. When you accept that contract, you accept their >>> administration of the product. They aren't reneging on a contract, they are >>> enforcing it. That's why they can cut off your cable, DSL, phone, and >>> computer game at a moments notice. Notice how root-kits got so much bad >>> press then game publishers came out with tools such as "Steam" and >>> "Origin"? Up front, in your face root kits. Read a EULA, you'll be amazed >>> at what they can do to what you "own." >>> >>> As far as John is concerned, if it's in his EULA or TOU and the users >>> accepts it or uses the product, they have to accept the kill switch. >>> Rendall is correct, "no one has a inherent right to the application." This >>> is not a social contract, it is a business contract. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Android Discuss" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/android-discuss/-/1ryEuV-mnG0J. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
