Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?

from the consumer-protection dept

To prove a point about how few people actually read the "terms and conditions" when making a purchase online, British game retailer GameStation decided to play an April fools joke on its customers, tricking many of them into agreeing to hand over the rights to their soul. GameStation's current terms require online purchasers of its products to agree to the following:
By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions.
The company provided a simple opt-out check-box and inferred from the number of shoppers who didn't click the box (about 88%) that very little attention is paid to such agreements. The fact that so few people read the contracts they sign is not exactly news, but the troublesome part is that these contracts are generally enforced -- although, in this case, GameStation admitted that they would not hold customers to the "immortal soul" clause. Contract law is founded on the notion that we are all free and equal individuals left to our own devices to enter into whatever transactions we wish. Moreover, many believe that any limitations on what individuals can be allowed to agree to (within certain well-accepted limits) are counter to economic wisdom. But when we face up to the fact so few people actually read these agreements, sooner or later we're likely to have to admit that some limits on what retailers can require in these agreements may make sense.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    justok (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:08am

    I'd give them one of my mortal souls. It'll still take a long time for them to find out I cheated them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Yogi, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:20am

    That fine

    In a free market economy, such transactions should not concern the legislature. The market will set the price for souls, according to the laws of supply (billions available)and demand (only satan and presumably god want souls). A video game for your souls sounds just about right, in these conditions. The real question here is how to sell your soul more effectively?

    The thing is you have to connect with your fans (the devil or god) and give them a reason to buy high. Settling for the old fashioned way of working through a recognized label (Roman Catholic, Jewish, and so on) just won't work in this day and age...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ITrush, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:26am

    OMG

    Oh boy, should we? always check the labels huh..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    David T, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:34am

    It's the agreement part...

    I think part of the reason people don't give much thought to these agreements is the conditioning we receive growing up.

    People are very hesitant to sign their name on any document because they associate that with a binding agreement. Clicking a check-box on a computer screen? Not such a problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Simon, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:39am

    I set-up a CSRF attack and sent them other peoples souls. I wish they had an a affiliate program.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Arfnotz, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:40am

    clcik through agreements

    I've always foundbootleg software more reliable and it never has any of those hidden agreements

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    D.A., Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:40am

    Prosecute the users for fraud...

    How can the users give away or sell something that is clearly not theirs.

    The soul belongs to God and it returns to him... so technically, the are defrauding the company - since they don't own a soul to give them - and they are attempting to steal from God.

    At least God might forgive them.

    Lawyers will not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 6:46am

    How long...

    Before one religious group or another tries to tie this stunt with how videogames are degrading the moral fabric of society?

    But good news! For the price of only 400,000 indulgences, UK Cardinal Molesty is willing to forgive thee of thy transgressions....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      TDR, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:20am

      Re: How long...

      Then they wouldn't be adhering to the faith they proclaim, if they did that. I just wish folks like you could learn to separate the two. And not make gross generalizations, as well. I'm not Catholic myself, but I can tell you that simple probability states that not all individuals of a certain group act a certain way, ie, not all priests are molesters.

      You're skeptical of the press, and rightly so, but whenever they play up such things and such numbers to create a moral panic around this issue, you devour them as though they're gospel. Ironic, yes? Accused does not mean guilty, or is it only when they share your beliefs? At least some of the time, I'd bet that it's sometimes the "victim" bringing false charges against the priest. Not always, but odds are it happens at least some of the time. Yet never do I see you or anyone like you admitting that possibility. Always lynch the priest, yes? Because it's easier on your worldview that way. No threat to it that way. Easier to believe all priests are molesters than to admit you might be wrong about more than just that. At least it seems to be that way for you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:33am

        Re: Re: How long...

        Meh, I was just actually making a joke. The name Cardinal Molesty tickled me (which is a funny statement in and of itself).

        I'd like to think that my attempts at serious and comical posts would be easy to differentiate, but perhaps I'm wrong...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:20am

        Re: Re: How long...

        First, I think it was pretty obvious he was kidding. Second, I don't recall even the most hysterical people claiming all or even most priests are abusive. That's just a strawman. Third, the Church found that from 1950 to 2002, 4% of US priests were involved in sex abuse. This is the church substantiating allegations against their own priests, not the press hyping up numbers to create a scare. I don't know about you, but I find that to be a shockingly high number. 1 in 25 priests was a molester.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tor (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:18am

    Reading this I came to think about this xkcd entry: Faust 2.0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:18am

    "Contract law is founded on the notion that we are all free and equal individuals left to our own devices to enter into whatever transactions we wish."


    Only if you define 'transaction' as an exchange of what the individual is able to be alienated from, i.e. their property, not their natural rights (life, privacy, truth, liberty).

    NB Labour is a condition to a transaction, it cannot be forcibly extracted (qv slavery). Similarly, people cannot bind themselves to perform future actions with promises since they cannot alienate themselves from their liberty. We can agree that if I wash your car you'll pay me $10, but I cannot promise to wash your car next week (however much you pay me today), since I cannot alienate myself from my liberty not to wash your car (refunding your payment). As far as individuals are concerned, making and keeping promises is purely a matter of reputation, not bondage. Corporations (having no liberty) can of course promise to do what they like in a contract.

    As for purchase of products, if the transaction is clearly portrayed as a simple exchange of money for goods, then it would be deceitful to induce the purchaser's agreement to an additional and unrelated exchange.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dan (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:31am

      Re:

      Your presumption is that the soul is connected to one's liberty. Is it? It's in the Declaration of Independence, but not the Constitution. Funny that. Thomas J must have been dozing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:24am

      Re:

      We can agree that if I wash your car you'll pay me $10, but I cannot promise to wash your car next week (however much you pay me today), since I cannot alienate myself from my liberty not to wash your car (refunding your payment).

      I seriously doubt US contract law prohibits payment in advance of services rendered, which is what you're claiming.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michael, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:52am

        Re: Re:

        His example was not very good. You can bind yourself to a future action, but not servitude. Basically, you have to bind yourself to a known action "washing a car" rather than an unknown action or set of actions "will do whatever you want for three days".

        Lots of contracts are for services "to be delivered".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 9:14am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Lots of contracts may be for services 'to be delivered', but a contract cannot bind an individual to a future action (because that would alienate the individual from their liberty - which contracts cannot do).

          E.g. "If you pay me $10 now, I will wash your car tomorrow" does not bind me to wash your car. It simply initiates an exchange contingent upon future labour. If the labour doesn't happen the exchange is unable to complete and thus reverts to the situation prior.

          Granted a lot of people like the idea they can get someone to sign on the dotted line and become thus entrapped into bondage, but then no doubt a lot of people like the idea of slavery. Many like the idea of a privilege over someone else, but not so much of others having a privilege over them.

          Just remember that liberty is inalienable, and cannot be exchanged through contract. Even if you wanted to surrender your liberty, it would be an injustice for any court to uphold it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 9:01am

        Re: Re:

        No, of course nothing prevents payment in advance, but payment doesn't bind the payee to provide service.

        The agreement is that the payment is equitable exchange for the service. Either the service is provided or the payment is returned, but the payee (if an individual) may not be forced to provide the service.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          G Thompson (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 10:58pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually if their has been an offer and then an acceptance to provide services for a promise of consideration (money), and then that money has been paid then the other parties(s) to the contract are bound by their original intention to perform. They need to provide the service or goods in a reasonable manner set by the promise they agreed to. Otherwise estoppel can be applied and remedies from forfeiture of that contract can be applied also.

          All a contract is, is a promise by one party to another. The contract has to be first offered then accepted. The parties have to have capacity to make the contract and their needs to be consideration (ie: something given for something gained) and an intention for all parties to fulfil the contract. The only other parts is it needs to be lawful under the jurisdiction.

          Though a contract cannot be for past events, it definitely CAN be for future events that are agreed upon.

          Whether these future events infringe on the 'rights' of one or both of the parties at the time of the future event is an issue that needs to be considered by the party that is going to have to meet and comply with those future events. If they don't, well that's what damages are for.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 20th, 2010 @ 1:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            One can effectively 'promise' property because it is alienable (and substitutable), but one cannot promise action (if anything, because one cannot determine or predict the future, let alone alienate oneself from one's liberty).

            It may seem a subtle difference:
            a) An advance payment conditional on one party's future action.
            b) Money in exchange for one party's submission into bondage to perform a future action.

            The former is a contract, the latter is an injustice.

            I appreciate that a lot of people think of contracts as promises, but this is a corruption. The law cannot compel people to carry out their promises, just as it cannot compel racers to win the races they promise they'll win. A promise is an informal commitment, not a legally recognisable one. The repercussion is loss of reputation, not prosecution.

            A contract is an agreement to make an equitable exchange of what can be exchanged, subject to conditions (but not bondage). Either the exchange is made or it isn't - it is voluntary after all. The law only needs to become involved in the event that the parties are unable to achieve equity (not that either party did not keep a promise). It may also need to become involved in the event that shysters have hoodwinked the gullible into believing they can sign or 'promise' themselves into bondage (or their immortal souls away).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              G Thompson (profile), Apr 20th, 2010 @ 2:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Whether it is an injustice or not is for society and by extension the courts through precedent(s) to decide

              Though allowing oneself knowingly to be committed to a 'bondage' when it is lawful under the contractual law of your jurisdiction (remember that not all common law countries have same contract law, let alone the non common law countries) is why people should ONLY sign when they are fully aware of what they are signing. Which I believe is the crux of what this article was all about.

              Yes the law (civil court, or court of equity) also has an obligation to disallow unlawful conditions (ie: murder, fraud, misrepresentation, unconscionable practices, etc).

              Though I would draw your attention to promissory estoppel (or just 'estoppel') to what the 'law' can demand and exercise.

              As for 'bondage' on future actions. Wouldn't that also include the contract that is entered into on Settlement cases. The promise not to talk, nor perform further 'legal' actions in lei of upfront consideration/payment.

              Absolutely legal in nearly ALL jurisdictions, though maybe not just and definitely not ethical all the time.

              Crosbie I do not disagree with you that it is in a lot of cases unjust, just that I know it is lawful. Also contracts have and always will be ever since the first contractual legal entities were created way back in the 1500's an act of promise. And a promise by it's very nature is a future event. As for an informal commitment not being a legally recognised one, the last 300years of common law legal crapola ;) would beg to differ.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 20th, 2010 @ 6:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I don't doubt that the law can be abused and many injustices are upheld, but the law should be determined by a better principle than the accretion of expedient precedent.

                We have to say that liberty is a priori inalienable - if anything, to remind judges that individuals cannot sign it away in contract. It cannot be up to the layman to be wary that they do not unwittingly sign away more than their property, e.g. a pound of flesh, or indentured servitude.

                For further reading regarding the understanding of contracts as equitable exchanges rather than enforceable promises see:
                http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Peter (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 10:32am

      Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?

      Of course you can. If you don't, you're in breach, and refunding the money I paid won't make it otherwise.

      And we contract away our privacy and liberty all the time. If you don't show up and perform your employment contract, you're in breach even if your reason for doing so is to enjoy your liberty. If you sign away access to your web browsing history, you've forfeited a good amount of privacy. We're not talking forcible extraction; we're talking mutual agreement. The problem is that we treat as mutual agreement situations in which we know it's a pure fiction.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?

        I think you'll find it's simply that you believe you contract away your privacy and liberty all the time (there's little incentive for those you believe you've contracted away your rights to, to disabuse you of this foolish notion).

        Working for an employer is entirely voluntary. You are at liberty to stop working any time you please. Your employer can't force you to work simply by paying you money, or simply by saying "You signed a contract!".

        Ones 'browsing history' isn't a good example of private information, since your ISP is necessarily privy to your use of their communications channel (you can utilise a VPN of course). NB Privacy is not the same as discretion.

        Try coming up with some 'slam dunk' examples of people signing away their privacy or liberty.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 10:54am

          Re: Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?

          "Try coming up with some 'slam dunk' examples of people signing away their privacy or liberty."

          1. Enlisting in the military

          2. Signing an NDA

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Crosbie Fitch (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 11:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?

            Enlisting in the military is a good example (YJMV), but not to demonstrate a good case for being able to surrender one's liberty, but as an example of the state colluding in it for its own interests. But, then there's extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, drowning/waterboarding, so the military are the last to look to when it comes to demonstrating legal standards for protecting civil rights.

            As for NDAs, a non-disclosure agreement cannot enable an individual to surrender their freedom of speech (YJMV). Breach of an NDA may well be grounds for dismissal, and adherence may be rewarded, but these consequences do not impinge on liberty. For an individual to be prosecuted for breaching an NDA would be an injustice, and so the enforceability of NDAs against individuals remains controversial.


            [YJMV=your jurisdiction may vary]

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dallas IT Guy, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:19am

    Back OT...

    Maybe what we need is something more sophisticated than a single "I agree" click through.

    For example, have the FTC publish a standard EULA/TOS. Then, if a company feels a need to change the terms of the standard, require an opt-in from the customer for each change.

    This would allow for all the legalese that seems to be necessary, but would standardize almost all of it, while highlighting the non-standard parts, and hopefully eliminating nasty surprises.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:03am

      Re: Back OT...

      have the FTC publish a standard EULA/TOS. Then, if a company feels a need to change the terms of the standard, require an opt-in from the customer for each change.

      There already is such a thing. It is called copyright.

      Problem is that lots of companies don't seem to think it is anywhere near enough and so the supplementary agreement is huge.

      Chances are that any new version would quickly suffer the same fate

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 10:13am

      Re: Back OT...

      why bother? its like copyright, nobody here will pay attention to it anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Logo, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:27am

    The opt-out also included a 5 GBP discount and people still missed out on it.

    It makes me curious, which would have caused more people to click the opt out: the immortal soul clause, or the 5 GBP discount.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Danny (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:33am

    There is no "sanity clause"

    Even if I were to read the complete text of the several online licenses I click through each week, there is no way for me to understand the implications of the word choices the author made as I am completely unfamiliar with the relevant case law.

    The author may have included (or omitted) specific phrasing in order to sculpt the meaning of the agreement. I would have to have, first, the base skill set in legal research and, second, the time to do the research in order to fully understand the implications of the license terms I click to accept.

    The whole system is absurd.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Matthew, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:50am

      Re: There is no "sanity clause"

      Furthermore compounding your trouble is the fact that the retailer from whom you purchased the media containing the software wants to treat that as a sale of physical goods (as well they should!) If you disagree with the license agreement and want to return the product for a refund, they have both incentive and a reasonable argument to decline you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:38am

    just visiting techdirt is like selling your soul. So many different companies collect information on you. now crowdscience is tracking all users. another one of the masnick do as i say not do as i do things. why do many third party actions on your site mike?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:53am

      Re:

      This is the internet. Everyone is a hypocrite. Sites like TD and Ars will complain about privacy violations and hidden information collection and on the same page load 27 different scripts from ad-sense and god knows who else.

      But the thing is, this is the natural state of things. If you really don't like this fact, you can always get your news from another source. Use your views and impressions to let the market decide who is right.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 9:08am

        Re: Re:

        it is just funny as hell to see. the masnick really doesnt follow his own rules and in fact has added new trackers to his site in the last little while. i wonder why there are so many third parties getting information for free from techdirt?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:04am

      Re:

      Or how about this? Is a market more efficient when there is a vast imbalance of information between buyers and sellers? When you go to any given site and consider consuming their content, you are not told what will be collected from your computer, who it will be sold to, or how it will be used. Website operators know this, but the visitors do not, thus inefficiency is introduced because factors that would affect consumption are hidden from the consumers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:55am

      Re:

      Are you drunk?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 9:25am

        Re: Re:

        I spend my lunch break catching up on tech news from Techdirt (or a competetor). My ad impressions are what is at stake. Techdirt has information that would affect what site I go to (we sell your information to company XYZ). That information could be: disclosed or witheld. By witholding that information, I am unable to make an informed decision as a consumer and I am forced to decide on what information is available to me. If I had perfect information, I may have behaved differently. How does witholding information because you know it will negatively affect a sale not introduce a market inefficiency?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dan (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:40am

    The moneychangers have the true power

    All this is well and good, but I always come back to the fact that if I'm not happy with my purchase, Citibank can get my soul back. The pope runs a poor second!

    And notice that all the counters in a bank are bolted to the floor in cases of righteous indignation. (JC is #1 !!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DaveL (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 7:44am

    Because we assume it's the usual yada yada

    I remember 20+ years ago some game company put a clause in their shrink wrap license saying basically "if you pirate this software, you hereby agree to forfeit your immortal soul to the devil".

    It was VERY prominent - they wanted you to see it. The company claimed that this cut down on piracy very significantly - I've always wondered why more vendors don't do that.

    Users don't read licenses because we assume it's the usual yada yada mandated by the lawyers. Plus, we assume that any "unreasonable" terms wouldn't be enforced by a court - which I think is the case with click-thru licenses.

    It would be far better if some respected organization developed a "standard" click thru license with "reasonable" terms which could be referenced - so the license becomes:

    [ ] I agree to the Standard SW Licences Terms.

    Then people would KNOW what they're agreeing to. And I think that would make more enforceable, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:04am

    The biggest problem is...

    There is no way to renegotiate a contract using these systems.
    Yes, there are plenty of Opt-Out options and if you don't like the limitations imposed upon you by the contract then you just don't buy the product.
    People don't read the contracts anymore because they can't affect them and regardless of what you buy, almost everything comes with some crazy contract attached to it and you have no choice but to except the terms or go without.
    If I could cross out a line or two, make an adjustment here or there to put some protection in for myself as the consumer and then send it back to the supplier/manufacturer for their approval... then maybe I'd be more inclined to read the damn things.
    Personally, I scan all of the contracts to make sure there is nothing that will infringe on my personal privacy that I can't opt out of before I buy. trying to affect anything else is useless in today's business focused society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ralph-J (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:06am

    Try proving the existence of a soul first...

    Maybe those 88% simply didn't care enough about this made-up soul concept, or the even more ridiculous concept that it can be sold?

    How would you prevent someone from selling their soul multiple times? How would you prove that you still possess your soul, before you sell it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:50am

      Re: Try proving the existence of a soul first...

      It's also possible that some or most of the other 12% just saw an opt out option that didn't negate the download. I know I opt out of everything possible without reading it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dan (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 9:20am

      Re: Try proving the existence of a soul first...

      A soul title search.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:08am

    How, exactly, do they propose to separate the customer from the soul in order to complete the transaction?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    Soul separation society

    Intercision works or you could just use a subtle knife.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:49am

    why shouldnt we allow it.

    how exactly are you going to A)prove that i even have a soul to begin with (whats the worst they could do... send me to collections?) and B)any attempts to collect said soul would be considered attempted murder or at the very least some form of assault if collection is unsuccessful and murder if it is successful which pretty much renders the issue of collection to be unenforceable anyway.

    (at least thats the line im having my lawyers go with when they come to try and collect)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    SATAN, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:52am

    identity theft is now cool?

    LOL
    i can steal your soul MUHAHA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pontifex (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 8:58am

    I hope for irony's sake that someone there bought "Dante's Inferno" in that transaction.

    Not that I would recommend the game or anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bshock, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 11:15am

    wtf? says an atheist

    Honestly, isn't this article a little silly? Even if you actually believe in a "soul," why would you think that a temporal agency could exercise any right over a non-material item?

    Look at this from my viewpoint. I could claim that everyone had an invisible, intangible, undetectable limb called the "angel arm." I could further claim that the angel arm contains all of your "psychic power." Then I could write up a contract in which you cede all rights to your angel arm to me in perpetuity, allowing me sole access to your psychic energies.

    Sounds silly, right? Granted, if a billion people repeated this nonsense for 2,000 years, it might not sound quite so silly to everyone. But that doesn't make it any less so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bradley Stewart, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 12:15pm

    The Jokes on Game Station

    I already have a third mortgage on my soul.They will just have to give me a seat and a game controller in Purgatory. Pardon the expression "For God Or His Brother Knows How Long". Until they get all the legal paper work straightened out I guess. Tell Saint Peter at the Golden Gate I just hate to make him wait but I've just got to have another cigarette.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This