You don’t actually need to be aware of it. Because you said you were aware of it, when you clicked Accept on the EULA, and on page 62 of the EULA it said they have the right to disable your printer remotely at any time and for any reason.
In decent nations, an EULA is considered an attempt by the seller to, after the purchase, change the terms of the implicit contract which was the sale, so it’s has no legal standing whatsoever.
Absolutelly, the seller can set contract terms before the sale is done (and even then there are lots of limitations to avoid things like bait & switch, so it usualy has to be pretty clear and upfront and there are certain rights that a retail buyer simply cannot loose, even contractually), but never after the sale has been done.
EULAs only have legal standing in a few places, including a few States in the US.
EULAs can very well be legal when you can read tgem before you purchase. Though German courts somewhat assume that nobody reads them, which becomes relevant if somebody puts something very unexpected in there. I would expect that they somehow disable only the ink, not the whole printer. Apparently thi also makes buying used printers a mess.
When ever I am forced to sign something (like some contract addendum for my job) I write that I don’t understand anything on that paper, or now I write it in email before e-signing.
It should be. But you agreed to it. Gotta print out that child support declaration in 20 minutes before your lawyer has to go to court? Hey fuck you consumer. Have a medical emergency and need to print something to save a patient? Fuck you consumer.
Someone should sue them for everything they are. Because they are thieves of the highest order.
When does an agreement become null and void when the knowledge and time needed to understand the terms, and especially whether they even stand in the various jurisdictions, is simply unfeasible for a layperson to be expected to possess?
In a similar vein, if an agreement requires a lawyer on call/retainer to interpret, what court besides a bought court would possibly uphold such a standard?
Fwiw I’m not asking this with the expectation of you personally having the answers, but to further highlight the absurdity of many of these so-called agreements.
EULAs and TOSs have been tossed out in court before under the logic that you need to understand an agreement for it to be legally binding and that not reading the agreement inherently prevents you from understanding it.
Wikipedia has an overview and their enforceability varies pretty dramatically across the US (which is why many such agreements attempt to specify which states or courts they must be litigated against in).
In most of the World EULAs have no legal standing whatsoever because they’re an attempt by the seller to after the sale change the terms of the sale.
It’s mainly in the US that those things aren’t instantly dismissed by the court as legally meaningless, but then again the US is way less consumer friendly that, for example, pretty much all of Europe.
I’ve never been represented by Bill directly, but I was a client of Bill S. Preston, Theodore Logan, Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan. Should I be concerned?
This is generally for a business lease contract with HP. I’ve never seen this done to a printer the person buys outright, only for contracted leased “pay-per-use” printers.
HP does an ink subscription thing. They will try to trick you into it, too, so I'm sure lots of people sign up without realizing just by trying to use their printer software. Anyway, that ink stops working if you stop paying.
Yeah I looked into it, some models require the HP+ subscription to work. That’s only on some of their loss leader models but still misleading, so that’s still shitty
Yeah no thanks on ink subscription. Also, my printer still works great… but HP forgot how to write software apparently so now I use a 3rd party android print app. Ugh. I’m kind of fed up with the HP experience lately.
Yes. Co-worker got a super cheap printer, and then tried to cancel the ink subscription. turns out he couldn’t just buy ink from them, and his printer was useless.
Yeah. It happened to me too. And they wouldn’t let me use the full ink cartridge I had because it was tied to the subscription. I had to go buy a completely separate ink cartridge and disconnect some other thing to print a stupid form. Fuck HP
If I sue you, you’ll be liable to sue yourself for illegal representation. Therefore, you’ll either win and pay damages, or lose and pay damages, meaning you’ve just found out an infinite money glitch IRL. I’ll see you in court.
Most don’t. There is a subscription service where you get ink every quarter automatically and you can’t skip shipments, but you have to choose that. Otherwise, most businesses have leased copy machines and printers for a long time now. Outsourcing maintenance can save money and simplify office administration.
I have an ecotank too. No BS subscription shenanigans, painless to get it working. What impresses me is the lack of it breaking if it sits even months between uses, usually not even needing to be cleaned.
If you get a Brother, it’s best to go with laser, as the toner will last ages. If you’re on a budget, the Brother inkejet I have gives zero shits what cartridges I put in there, as long as they’re the right shape. I usually have to clean the contacts on top of the cartridges before inserting like it’s an NES, though.
people always say this, but 95% of what i print is index and reference cards that need colour :( I would love to get a B&W printer, but i need the colours.
Color Laserjet is the way if you “need” colors. The only time inkjet is any better is if you’re printing actual photo quality stuff. But at that point it’s cheaper to just buy it through an online company like www.nationsphotolab.com/prints.aspx rather than maintaining the printer itself.
Just for fun I looked this up. From Wikipedia, it seems very few places have legal protection over the title of “esquire”. So if you’re not from one of those places, have fun with the title!
yeah and the association with lawyers seems to be a us thing. Im always conflicted with memes as they are gags so not expected to be factual but then I think its easy for folks to see one and make a connection of fact from it in their head. Is it responsible to correct a meme or is it just being a buzzkill?
I remember r/FatPeopleHate, where people who hated fat people went to look at pictures of very very fat people, with diseased bodies, lots of exposed folded skin, all of that.
The pictures they ended up bringing to r/all were truly awful.
I wonder if they’re still doing that. Somewhere out there, 5 000 guys and girls sharing pictures of fat people, looking at them, and talking about how much they hate looking at them.
lemmyshitpost
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.