Might is the wrong word. EULA are court tested in the US. EULA are legally binding.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

"The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC."

By null and void you mean fully legal and court tested in the US?

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

"The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC."

Abe doesn't trust Ben's provider. Ben doesn't trust Abe's provider. Both now exist in silos.

Yes I do have to trust the same people you do. That's the definition of single sign on.

So your position is that since one person doesn't know enough to care about the trustworthiness of a service provider no one should?

It's impossible to find someone everyone trusts.

Also what happens once the central repository is compromised?

What happened to the nuke?

When a friend texted one participant about selling drugs, he responded, 'Hey, be careful, the BlackBerry people are watching, but don't worry, they won't tell anyone.'"

That proves they are telling people.

A teachable moment is a direct message saying you used the wrong one.

A look at me post longer than the post you're correcting is simply attention seeking.

Sorry about your low self esteem.

I'm sorry if you were upset but that was not my intention.

That would be a subset of frugal.

Used games do not hurt the industry. In fact they help the industry!

First off used games have been around since day one. The game industry has only grown since then. Obviously there's no harm. Now onto the specifics.

Used stores are used by two groups, high volume game consumers and people not willing or able to pay full price.

The high volume consumers sell the games. Why do they do this? So they have money to buy more games?

The buyers fall into two basic categories. People who are frugal and people who can't afford $60. Even though these people don't buy games at full price used stores allow them to still be gamers. This allows people to enter the hobby, and thus the market, at an earlier point. They get hooked. Eventually they make more money and don't want to wait for games so they start buying games at full price. Frugal people will never pay full price for games. It's against their nature. Trying to get them to will at worst result in them leaving the market, at best only buying things at discount.

Additionally used game stores put more money into the pockets of game companies. They do this by funneling the money from the used buyers and giving it to the hard core gamers who sell the games to the used stores. You remove this middle man and your hard core gamers have less money to buy games, you lose the customers who can't pay full price due to economics.

All because some exec sees the games in used stores as lost sales, when in fact they all were sales, in order to try and capture a demographic that by it's nature will never be direct customers of theirs.

Ob sig

As long as even the poor are happy and literally fat what incentive to the citizens have to change anything?