The grandparent was listing jokes, not actual malicious software.

Of course I jest, but which other Windows program anywhere near as popular brings up UAC prompts out of nowhere in the way Java updater does without even being "opened"? I bet Java is partially to blame for a huge number of users blindly clicking "Yes" to all UAC prompts - in the average user's eyes it just won't stop prompting until you accept its damn update.

I was too young for the ICQ era but I can vouch that MSN Messenger was definitely the most popular one in Britain in the 2000s. Never once had to use AIM to talk to someone who wasn't America.

No one IM protocol compares with Facebook on a global scale.

IANAL but a lot of that sounds like it'd might fall foul of the EU-wide Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. The bricking definitely.

If I wanted a 3DS I'd still get one regardless. If they bricked my device I'd see them in small claims. Call me overconfident if you want, but living the lifestyle where you're worried about terms that don't look like they'll stand up is quite boring and sometimes expensive.

I recently bought my first Steam game and didn't care about the ToS for the same reason - nothing that looked threatening seemed valid. Yeah they're a US company, but I'm sure they'll have enough presence/assets in the UK to hold accountable (notably there are quite a few terms say things like "May not be valid if you're an EU customer", so it seems they do feel threatened to comply with EU laws at least somewhat).

I think you completely missed the point of the grandparent. He's saying that thanks to there not being an 18+ rating ("bureaucratic red tape"), banning the game was not a "poor decision", as the only other decision that could be made at the time is to make it 15+, which shouldn't be acceptable (something you don't seem to contest)

He never said that the lack of 18+ rating wasn't a poor decision - it's simply not the decision he's referring to (Unless when reviewing a game the ratings board have the power to instantly introduce the 18+ rating so they can rate that game as such, but I think it's safe to say that's impossible). I imagine he probably agrees with most of what you just lectured him on. Not sure how you got +3 insightful for poor reading.

I imagine you've probably also been replied to many times that not updating "removes" other functionality. I'm not a PS3 owner but I've heard this includes using the PSN, playing new games, potentially playing new Blu-Rays, and of course any advantages that come with software updates. At least two of those are very easy to justify as advertised features (Games & Blu-Ray).

So either you lose one feature or you lose (at least) one other. I think the GP's comment applies perfectly, Sony cannot escape their "asshatness" by the fact that you can choose between two unpleasant outcomes.

Please don't mention anything to do with EULAs by the way. Whilst I would happily justify against Sony in a legal discussion of the matter, all we're talking about right now is Sony being an asshat.

To be fair, there isn't too much wrong with living in your parents' basement if you're 14 years old ;p

.....Madness?

THIS
IS
SPACE BAR!

I cannot believe there are so many comments with a lack of understanding of what 100/1 is. I cannot believe one of them has been modded +3 interesting.

100/1 means if you bet £1 and the bet wins, you get your £1 stake back and your winnings of £100. Their winnings aren't 1%, they are 100x i.e. 10000%. So if contact was made, the bookmaker would lose £100 on a £1 bet, and hence would have somehow had to turn that £1 into £101 beforehand in order to not make a loss. Forget the people talking about how 3% is impossible, there is NO savings account or bond that'll let you do that in a year.

I thought it was obvious I already knew that...?

Huh?

More black and white viewpoints from you, that all kids are either angels or devils. There are plenty of children who will attempt to do many of those things and then just give up if they fail, meaning the existence of the law had an effect.

The rest of your post I'm not going to even individually comment on as it shows you pretty much ignored half of mine. For the parents to be able to take action over children having these items requires the parents to know their children have them, and I already explained that for the parents to know about them oversteps the boundaries of freedom that British teenage children generally have.

One more time: over here it is normal for children to go out on their own with friends at a young age, unsupervised. Thus it is only appropriate the duty of care for some things like sale of unsuitable goods temporarily shifts from the distant parents to the adults around them.

Don't you already have that de facto censorship in the US? I thought that Wal Mart prevents the sale of AO rated games, and cinemas don't take NC-17 rated movies.

Besides, many comments claim that the majority of US retailers already don't sell M rated video games to minors. Those are the only retailers that publishers really care about, so will this really change anything?

People don't magically gain all of their responsibility at some magical age like 18 or 21. In the UK, we don't keep tight leashes on 15 year old children (I could probably put a lower number there but I'm going to play it safe). We let them go outside without their parents and we let them stay in their rooms without checking on what they're doing every 10 minutes. However we do not think they are responsible enough to play certain violent video games. Preventing the sale of the violent video games to children gives a way to stop many children from playing the violent games without affecting their freedoms to do other things that they are in fact responsible enough to do. Affecting those freedoms will aversely affect them; they will benefit more from being introduced to some parts of life at a younger age.

Do you have a better idea?

Assuming by "places" you mean "countries", I agree.

This always bothers me. It seems to me that a fair bit of the west seem perfectly fine regulating what movies and games minors are allowed to buy, with the main exception being the US. In the countries with regulation, while there are complaints, the complaints are rarely to do with preventing sale to minors.

Let's concentrate on Australia for now, since it seems to be the one that comes up the most. Now whenever the OFLC is mentioned on Slashdot, every Australian cries about the same thing - about how if a game is deemed unsuitable for a 15 year old, then it is banned. But the solution that the comments call for is rarely for the OFLC to be disbanded. No, they call for the existence of an 18 rating, so that nothing has to be banned.

Similarly here in the UK - there is outcry whenever something is actually banned (e.g. Manhunt 2 temporarily), but no one seems to have any problem about things not being suitable for children. The sole exception to that rule was probably the Spiderman movie - parents were not happy about the 12 rating it got. However that's been fixed now, 12 has been replaced with 12A - basically the same as PG-13.

What's the issue with regulation done right?

Okay I am really confused over all of these attempts to sue the manufacturers, maybe I'm missing something here. In the UK, if a product is not as described/fit for purpose among other things, the seller is liable (providing they're a business etc.). It's the same thing EU-wide (1999/44/EC), surely it's the same with Australia and North America?

Or am I wrong about the UK, and the manufacturer is also liable? Any British IANALs got some case or statute law that says that a buyer can sue a manufacturer for false advertising?

Not that I don't think the lawsuit is stupid, but wow, what a pointless diss. Rupert Murdoch owns a company in the UK that some North Americans haven't heard of - so what? We've certainly all heard of it over here.

By the way, BSkyB isn't a "news organization", although they do have a news channel or two.