Hot Topics

MBS billing

  Forum Editor 11:41 02 Sep 2007
Locked

This is a continuation of the thread that was originally posted in the Helproom. That thread ended up being 21 pages long, with over 800 posts, and has been closed. In response to requests I'm opening this here, in Consumerwatch which is a more appropriate place, so the discussion may continue.

You can read the original thread if you click here

  Forum Editor 11:38 07 Sep 2007

"will it stop the unintentional sign-ups?"

Nobody will ever know. I'm sure that lots of people will still say they had no intention of signing up, in the same way that lots of people say they aren't aware of the software licences they accept when installing programs.

You can lead a horse to water, etc.

We should at least take some comfort from the fact that we, the people in this forum, have been instrumental in bringing about this change.

  Forum Editor 07:55 09 Sep 2007

Provided a web site does not contain images of child abuse, or of violent pornography, or of anything which is criminally obscene under the terms of the obscene publications act, there is no legal requirement for age verification in this country.

You might feel that something's not right about this, and that we should have laws prohibitng people under a certain age from viewing pornographic images, and I might agree with you in principle, but there are problems associated with introducing and implementing such legislation.

It's no good making a law to prohibit something if you know very well that it couldn't be enforced. Anyway, who is going to judge that a 17-year-old mustn't look at pornographic images? People of that age have been seeing such images for decades, if not centuries. As far as very young chidren are concerned, it's largely up to parents to take steps to control what they do on the internet, and even to decide whether they have internet access at all, unless very strictly supervised.

  spuds 10:27 09 Sep 2007

I agree with the forum editor, that enforcement of this type of activity could be difficult. But in the case of MBS this is made even more difficult due to their method of collection. If they used the 'normal' procedures that are adopted by most, if not all purveyors of this commodity, that is payment by credit or debit card 'before' downloading, then enforcement would be easier.

By enforcement, I would suggest by authorities, governing bodies and MBS themselves. At least MBS would then have information as to who owes them or the website owners money, instead of forcing the issue by perhaps sabotaging a computer system. In the case of 'authorities', they would have the legal right to obtain information 'that is on record' of subscribers, if needed.

  wee eddie 17:10 15 Sep 2007

More likely that fewer people are automatically clicking on EULA's than before.

I still find it difficult to credit the Streams of Righteous Indignation that have been pouring through these threads.

Maybe MBS has done the Porn Industry a good turn!

  Forum Editor 00:24 16 Sep 2007

"get the lounge opened up again"

Over my dead body.

  Forum Editor 11:25 16 Sep 2007

How exciting - my first death threat!

  Forum Editor 23:15 18 Sep 2007

who's been successfully pursued".

Neither have I.

  Forum Editor 17:03 19 Sep 2007

It's for MBS to worry about that - it's not our concern, really. The important thing is that people are given a clear warning that they are about to commit themselves, and that they are able to see a clearly-worded set of terms and conditions. Once that's in place it's for MBS to worry about how they collect payment.

  Forum Editor 16:51 23 Sep 2007

There are many cases of people claiming that they can't be liable for payments for goods or services because their computer was used by a person who was too young to enter into a contract.

The excuse has been used by people who have been prosecuted for downloading illegal copyright-protected music files. In such cases the court has tended to the view that the person who is liable is the one who owns the computer and pays the Internet Service provider.

  wee eddie 11:03 25 Sep 2007

I hate to disillusion you, but I believe that a parent can be held liable for the actions of a child until that child has reached the age of majority.

Please note that I have used the word "can" rather than the word "is".

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

1x1 pixel
Elsewhere on IDG sites

Google Pixelbook Go review

5 Design Tips for Stand-out Packaging in the New Normal

Different Think: Apple, stop being so successful!

French Days 2020 : dates, sites participants & bons plans